Talk:2017 NFL season

Free agency moves

I am suggesting reformatting the free agency moves paragraph into table format to make it more readable. Any views:

2017 free agent signings

Position	Player	Former team	New team
Cornerbacks	A. J. Bouye	Texans	Jaguars
	Logan Ryan	Patriots	Titans
	Stephon Gilmore	Bills	Patriots
Safeties	Barry Church	Cowboys	Jaguars
	Johnathan Cyprien	Jaguars	Titans
	Micah Hyde	Packers	Bills
	Tony Jefferson	Cardinals	Ravens
Linebackers	Jabaal Sheard	Patriots	Colts
	Malcolm Smith	Raiders	49ers
	Manti Te'o	Chargers	Saints
Defensive tackles	Johnathan Hankins	Giants	Colts
	Calais Campbell	Cardinals	Jaguars
Offensive tackles	Andrew Whitworth	Bengals	Rams
	Kelvin Beachum	Jaguars	Jets
	Matt Kalil	Vikings	Panthers
	Mike Remmers	Panthers	Vikings
	Ricky Wagner	Ravens	Lions
	Riley Reiff	Lions	Vikings
	Russell Okung	Broncos	Chargers
Offensive guards	Kevin Zeitler	Bengals	Browns
	Larry Warford	Lions	Saints
	Ronald Leary	Cowboys	Broncos
	T. J. Lang	Packers	Lions
Tight ends	Martellus Bennett	Patriots	Packers
	Jared Cook	Packers	Raiders
Wide receivers	Alshon Jeffery	Bears	Eagles
	Brandon Marshall	Jets	Giants
	DeSean Jackson	Redskins	Buccaneers
	Kenny Britt	Rams	Browns
	Pierre Garçon	Redskins	49ers
	Robert Woods	Bills	Rams
	Terrelle Pryor	Browns	Redskins
	Torrey Smith	49ers	Eagles
Running backs	Latavius Murray	Raiders	Vikings
	Adrian Peterson	Vikings	Saints
	Eddie Lacy	Packers	Seahawks
	Jamaal Charles	Chiefs	Broncos
Fullbacks	Mike Tolbert	Panthers	Bills
	Patrick DiMarco	Falcons	Bills
Quarterback	Mike Glennon	Buccaneers	Bears

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legis (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – The current format has been working fine for years. No need to change it now. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the ship has sailed on this one now, but I am not sure "we have always done it the other way in the past" is necessarily a sound argument. That is just an argument for never trying to improve anything. Advantages of a table format are, firstly, tables are a much less cumbersome way to present the data. And secondly, it allows the data to be sorted quickly by either (i) position, (ii) free agents lost by a team, or (iii) free agents signed by a team. On any view that has to be an improvement in functionality for the article. A solid paragraph of continuous prose (like we have now) with the same information is just unhelpful. But let's discuss again ahead of time for the 2018 season. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please keep this article at High importance

Throughout the season, I've seen IPs change the importance of this page to "Top" without edit summary, and I'd like to clarify the assessment the WikiProject uses for those not in the know:

• High importance - Articles that fall just short of being vital in the understanding of the subject as a whole. This should include articles on individual league seasons; articles on individual Super Bowls, league championship games and playoff years, defunct franchises and general articles on topics central to the league.
• Top importance - Reserved exclusively for articles that are vital to the understanding of the National Football League. This should include any articles or lists on the general topic of the league, articles on current franchises and articles that cover topics that are central to the history of the league.

With that in mind, the 2017 season is not vital to the understanding of the league as a whole. Please do not change this without discussion. I'd also like to ask that regular users of the page keep an eye out for this behavior in the future. Thanks.jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Colin Kaepernick

There's no source yet to indicate Kaepernick retired. Please stop adding it in! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about 2017 playoff seedings

2607:FCC8:8D01:C800:B922:BB62:1046:8A3 (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Hi, I have a question about playoff seedings. If Kansas City and Jacksonville both finish with 10-6 records, which team will get the AFC’s Number 3 seed?2607:FCC8:8D01:C800:B922:BB62:1046:8A3 (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Jacksonville and Kansas City are your 3 and 4 seeds, respectively, no matter what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetsarivan iv (talk • contribs) 05:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't answer anything!!!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This must mean that Jacksonville already must hold a tiebreaker over Kansas City. Since the two teams did not play head to head this season, what tiebreaker would give Jacksonville the #3 seed?2607:FCC8:8D01:C800:DCCA:CEC5:7026:3A43 (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thetsarivan iv could not answer, why Jacksonville is number 3, so I do: Jac has a better conference record than KC.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about Minnesota clinching first round bye scenarios

Wouldn’t Minnesota be guaranteed a first round bye if they lost but the Saints lost, not won, their game? I think someone made a mistake.2607:FCC8:8D01:C800:DCCA:CEC5:7026:3A43 (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No, that's correct, because Minnesota have beaten New Orleans and LA Rams, but have lost to Carolina.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] - it seems to me, the IP is right, this is not in the NFL-source, so we cannot write it in the article, but let's think about it anyway. If the Rams win and Carolina wins, the head-to-head-results of Minnesota against Carolina and LA would not count, because Carolina did not play LA. So the conference records will decide and Minnesota will have the best record here!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

[2] - ah, yes :-) --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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 23:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)