Talk:2020 NFL season

Joe Judge as head coach for the Giants?

Why are people putting that Joe Judge is head coach of the Giants? The NY Giants have not said anything on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. TheBigMan720 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

People are jumping the gun. Judge (NY Football Giants) and Rhule (Panthers) have been reported by team sources as having come to agreements with the teams, but have yet to be formally announced, so they remain hidden until then. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay but when I do it, Matt Rhule has been announced as the Panthers head coach.) My edits for Joe Judge get reverted for no reason. And RockChalk717 kept reverting my edits on the Joe Judge page and told me that "we don't have to wait for the official announcement" which that is straight up bs. TheBigMan720 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL would indicate to keep hidden until announced by team (negotiations have been known to fall through, see Josh McDaniels). Perhaps bring it to the attention of an administrator who can stop this before it turns into an edit war. You can also send a message to User:Rockchalk717 on his talk page. Be wary of WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed you were right on Rhule. Mea Culpa. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I tried that before to talk with him in the past and it didn't go very well on my end. I brought up the Josh McDaniels thing and he just makes up more crap I never heard of. TheBigMan720 (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

:If you’re gonna talk about me TheBigMan720 please tag me. It’s not BS. It’s the always has been done. I’ve explained to you. It was a similar situation with Terrell Suggs. Players signing with new teams are handled the EXACT SAME WAY and always have been. WP:CRYSTAL doesn’t apply because the information IS verifiable with multiple sources reporting it. It always has been and most likely always will be this way. Jumping the gun would be a single source reporting and other analysts and insiders not saying anything. The arguments being used are being based solely off of one off scenarios, specifically Josh McDaniels to the Colts. I’m done discussing this with you because you are not getting what I am saying. Take further objections to WT:NFL.--Rockchalk717 03:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, I explained to you that players signings are different. I am just trying to help you out but you are failing to listen to my words and you are clearly jumping to the gun about a hiring that hasn't been announced by the acutal team itself. I brought up the Ron Rivera situations and other editors haven't had a problem with my edits before the official announcement. It's like come on man get with the program already. TheBigMan720 (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

How many Pro Bowls are notable?

I think this question may be related to the Deion Sanders controversy of the dilution of the HoF. While 3 Pro Bowls may have been notable a few years ago, the standard may have to be raised as time goes on and more and more people make the Pro Bowl. Just being wary of an edit war. Jdavi333 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The notable retirements should be the "best of the best," and three Pro Bowls isn't really as much of a measure of that as it was 5-10 years ago. There are more Pro Bowl selections because more people make it to the PB (due to the original selections being injured, playing in the Super Bowl, or simply not wanting to play). I think this threshold should be raised to at least five, but that might be too extreme, so I boldly went up to four. For example, in 2019, 12 players were "notable" at the 3 PB/All Pro threshold and 28 were "others." There is no reason almost 1/3 of the retirees should be considered among the best of the best. With 4 PB threshold, 11 of 40 would be notable. At five PBs, the number goes down to six, or 15%, which is more appropriate for the top players to retire. Frank Anchor^Talk 04:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The only question is should the bar just be set super high now, or should we keep raising it as time goes on? I think 5 is a little high, but might be worth it to set it there now instead of keeping to move the line every 2-3 seasons. Most careers of notable players are about 10 years, so 5 Pro Bowls (50%) is pretty notable. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cowboys42119: You have to engage with the conversation here before you revert the edits. A conversation was started to discuss this exact issue and you ignored it for a week so @Frank Anchor switched it back. Discuss, then edit. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, to address a point that User:Cowboys42119 made, Darren Sproles was selected as a Pro Bowler or AP All Pro in four separate seasons (2011, 2014, 2015, 2016). The list specifies four Pro Bowl and/or All Pro Selections. While uncommon, there are instances in which a player makes an All-Pro roster but does not qualify for a Pro Bowl (specifically Sproles in 2011), so Cowboys' argument to include Long because Sproles is also on the list is invalid Frank Anchor^Talk 19:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Three has been the the criteria for the last three years. It should stay that way. Therefore, Kyle Long belongs on that list. Cowboys42119 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Just because that has been the criteria in the past (and the criteria has been changed to four in all recent NFL season pages without objection), even if you think it should be that way There is a consensus to change the requirement to (at least) four Pro Bowl/All Pro selections and you are the only one who seems to disagree, despite making zero valid arguments. Frank Anchor^Talk 13:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Frank Anchor will not get an argument out of me. He needs to mind his own business and leave me alone. Three is good enough and he is the only one who disagrees and doesn’t even have a good argument for it. Cowboys42119 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

where's the SCHEDULE?

i'd think that is the most important thing for a page like this. indiv teams have them; why not a master chart here?

unlike most other sports, local tv/radio broadcasts a rotation of out-of-market games. hockey, baseball, basketball fans rarely get games between out of town teams (unless they have cable), so i can perhaps see lack of interest in an exhaustive, national, chart.

with FOOTBALL, however, ppl typically see 2-3 such games a week -- it's kind of CRITICAL to follow the entire league schedule!

put it behind a "hide" tag if ppl think it's too lengthy. but it definitely should be here! 66.30.47.138 (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@66.30.47.138: Wikipedia is not a TV guide or a directory, and an addition to this page would be overly detailed and unnecessary. You can find individual team schedules at their respective season articles, or NFL.com for the entire league schedule. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sending an entire division to the playoffs

Was that ever possible before? We have 4 teams per division, and notice "adding a third wild card team" for this season. Carlm0404 (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it is possible this year, specifically with the NFC West if the 49ers turn it around. Jdavi333 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It was possible from 1990–94, after the playoffs expanded from five per conference to six (three division winners and three wild cards), but before the Panthers and Jaguars joined the league in 1995. The NFC West and AFC Central each had four teams, so it was possible that they could get their division champ and all three WCs. This never happened though. Frank Anchor^Talk 12:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there was at least one season where a 5 team division got all 3 wild cards - but, yes there's never been a season with an entire division in the play-offs. 141.92.129.42 (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Is the pass attempts record notable?

Regarding the Week 12 milestone : "Tom Brady broke the career record for pass attempts with his 10,460th attempt, surpassing Drew Brees (10,459 pass attempts), who had previously broken the record in the first week of the season.". Assuming Brees returns, we could well have this record going back and forth all season - so is it really noteworthy enough to mention this? 141.92.129.41 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We already do not report every time Brady or Brees passes each other for the most TDs, so there is no reason to report every time one passes the other for attempts either. After they retire, it would probably be useful to retroactively report the when one passed the other for good, but not now. Frank Anchor^Talk 12:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions about Playoff Scenarios (Week 15)

I have a couple of questions about this week's playoff scenarios.

1. If Kansas City wins out and finishes 15-1, obviously they will get the AFC's #1 seed since Pittsburgh and Buffalo cannot finish better than 14-2 and 13-3 respectively.

• But if Kansas City finished with the same win-loss record as Pittsburgh (who will absolutely win the AFC North with 13 wins - this will be asked separately), since the two clubs did not play each other this year during the regular season, who would get the higher seed and what tiebreaker would apply?
• And if Kansas City, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo all finished tied at 13-3 or 12-4, how would they be ranked, and would the fact that on one hand, Pittsburgh did not face Kansas City during this year's regular season, while, on the other hand, Buffalo faced both squads during the regular season and lost to Kansas City in Week 6 but beat Pittsburgh in Week 14 matter? Would head-to-head apply or would a different tiebreaker apply, and if so, which one?

2. If Cleveland wins out (including an obvious win against Pittsburgh in Week 17 to tie their season series at one win apiece) and Pittsburgh loses two of their last three (one of which is Week 17 to Cleveland) so that both clubs finish tied at 12-4, which team (Cleveland or Pittsburgh) is awarded the AFC North's division title and what tiebreaker would apply? If Cleveland wins the division, would this have any impact on the playoff scenarios I asked back in Question 1?

3. If Indianapolis and Tennessee (who have already played both head-to-head matchups and split them) both win out and finish tied at 12-4, which team (Indianapolis or Tennessee) is awarded the AFC South's division title and what tiebreaker would apply?

• Also, I just realized, should Indianapolis and Tennessee tie at 12-4, there could be a five way tie or six way tie for the AFC's best record. How would that affect the playoff picture?
• And obviously if only Indianapolis or only Tennessee finishes at 12-4, that team will win their division, but there could still be a five way tie for the AFC's best record. How would that affect the playoff picture?
• And assuming Pittsburgh and Cleveland don't finish with the same record in the AFC North AND Indianapolis and Tennessee don't finish with the same record in the AFC South, and the winners of those two divisions somehow end up in a four way tie with Kansas City and Buffalo for the AFC's best record, how would that affect the playoff picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.183.2 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

If anyone could answer these questions for me, I'd really appreciate it.

I'll be helpful although this discussion may be against Talk page guidelines. Here's my attempt, no guarantees:

1a) KC would win the tiebreaker with Pitt., either with a better conference record or a better record in common games (Buff./Balt./Hou./Den.) (edit: except as noted by LarryJeff below).

1b) KC would win a 3-way tie with Buff and Pitt at 12 wins with a better conference record. At 13 wins, if KC beats the Chargers, they win the tiebreaker with a better conference record. If KC's 13th win is against NO or Atl., then the tiebreaker goes to strength of victory (too difficult for me to determine at this time).

2) Pitt. would win the tiebreaker with Cleveland with a better division record. If Pitt. loses all three remaining games and Clev wins all three remaining games, Cleveland winning the North would not affect the scenarios in #1, since Cleveland's conference record would be worse than any of those teams.

3) Tenn. would win the tiebreaker with Ind. with a better division record.

Your 4-way, 5-way, and 6-way scenarios will take some more time to decipher. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

If all four division winners end up with a 12-4 record, the outcomes I describe above would not change. #1 KC, #2 Buff., #3 Pitt. or Clev., and #4 Tenn. or Ind. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Spiffy sperry nailed it. The thing to remember about any tie that involves multiple teams from within a division (like the potential 5- or 6-team tie you asked about) is that they would first decide the division winners, and then proceed with seeding those 4 teams only considered as a 4-way tie.

Side note, if my evaluation is right, KC would win any tie they are involved in except for 2 cases:

14-2 tied with Pittsburgh, if the Chiefs' 2nd loss is to the Chargers. Steelers would have better conference record.

13-3 tied with both Pittsburgh and Buffalo, again if the Chiefs lose to the Chargers. This would come down to strength of victory. LarryJeff (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Another thought, to answer your question about head-to-head result in a 3-way tie between PIT, BUF, and KC. In a tie between more than 2 teams, H2H result is only used if one team either won or lost against all other teams involved. So since Buffalo split those 2 games, and the other teams didn't play each other, it just goes to the next tiebreak which is conference record. LarryJeff (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I would direct you to this website, which lists all the scenarios. The website has links to reddit and twitter where the author explains more in depth. Also. this website has a "what if" setting where you can run results for the entire season to see what happens. Jdavi333 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

So, just to be clear about one quick thing - Pittsburgh winning or Cleveland losing this weekend guarantees that Pittsburgh will win the AFC North because no matter what happens in Weeks 16 or 17, Pittsburgh will be guaranteed to finish with either a better win-loss record than Cleveland and/or have clinched a tiebreaker that would place them ahead of Cleveland for first place in the division when the season ends if the two teams are tied. Is that correct? 74.130.185.133 (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Steelers have already clinched the tiebreaker over Cleveland based on winning the 1st game head to head, and a better division record. LarryJeff (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Undoing "Flash Gordan's Team"

How do we go about in doing this? –Piranha249 01:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Playoff scenarios are fancruft and do not belong on this website

Playoff scenarios are clearly fancruft and do not belong on this page, or any other page for that matter. These are only useful during that week and get removed as the scenarios do/don't happen, so there is no lasting notability to them. I have tried removing but an IP keeps reinstating without comment. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging users who have been editing that section: @ChessEric: @Frank Anchor: @Minna Sora no Shita: @Jdavi333: @Swagging: Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Idk why you say it’s fancruft. Playoff scenarios are officially released by the NFL weekly. And no one else in the past has ever complained. Jdavi333 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what to say to that. Let me know what you guys decide to do.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:41, 31 December 2020 (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)

why is the afc on top

in this one]\

can i change it VVV317 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

First season with games on all seven days of the week

According to an article I found (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2020/12/02/wednesday-nfl-game-history-ravens-steelers/3780227001/), the 2020 season was the first season in NFL history to have a game on all seven days of the week. I feel that this point should be included in some way on this page, due to how this is extremely unlikely to occur again. 131.247.224.21 (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It’s completely useless trivia. Frank Anchor 00:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

How? Some of the season pages mention historical trivia of Tuesday/Wednesday/Friday games, like when the last one was played, so how is this different? 131.247.224.21 (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Then those should be removed as well. The purpose of the NFL season pages is to describe results, stats, etc. not to explain which day of the week certain games are played on. Frank Anchor 02:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2020 NFL season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 11:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

General

So, I took a good look over this article, but it simply isn't an encyclopedicly written article. It's full of cruft, lots of information about "notable" retirees and deaths, as if we should be making that claim. There's so much uncited, and it's not written for someone who is not familiar with the subject. Article suffers a lot from WP:INSICRIMINATE information, especially when so much is uncited. I'd be happy to look at this article when it's in better shape, but for now it's a quick fail for not being consise, having so much uncited and not well written. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.