Wikipedia

Talk:2007 NFL draft/Archive 1

< Talk:2007 NFL draft
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Deejayk in topic Dead link 22
Archive 1

Initial comments

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The listing of prospects for the 2007 draft is pure speculation right now. Anyone who follows football knows that prospects elevate and fall all the time. One of the players who was on here, Mike D'Andrea, gave up football this week because of a series of knee injures. I don't think that whoever wrote the article is a professional scout. I think the whole section should be deleted or at the very least, authentic cited. I don't like the whole idea of "projections" on a Encyclopedia, anyway.--Thomas.macmillan 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree... given that there are 252 "top prospects" listed and the draft itself only has 255 selections. Orange Julius 18:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed Chad Henne and Jake Long from the board, they both announced that they will be returning to Michigan, I hope this was ok

citation for prospects

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Until someone can cite a source for this, I'm removing it as POV. --24.19.144.93 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, a source has been found, but I think this information would be better put somewhere else. --24.19.144.93 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


While I agree that Wikipedia is an odd site for the NFL Draft -- I find it very resourceful and welcome it's presence. Note: I do wish Wikipedia would put back the underclassmen eligibles I saw earlier today (01/02/07) -- another very resourceful and welcomed presence for this NFL and NFL Draft fan. PS...Keep up the good work Wikipedia. 69.134.144.63 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)SRG69.134.144.63 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Quote: Listing includes top senior prospects at all major positions along with a handful of underclassmen who are draft eligible and are projected to be selected in the draft, should they declare.


just my opinion but the page looked better before someone put the asterisks beside underclassman names. it made it easier to tell the diffrence.Burnqq 09:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete prospect list

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know that it's a really good idea to have ESPN's complete list of prospects here ... primarilly because it is arguably a copyright violation ... but also because it just doesn't look that great. Last year, we had a table showing the top ten prospects given by three major draft services. (See here for an arbitrary old version from the page history.) Would anyone else be interested in having something formatted more like that? I think it makes for a much tighter article. --BigDT 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between projecting picks (which it's way too early to do) and listing scouts. There should be a list like this, but it should be organized and trimmed. There are lots of players here who really don't belong. This shouldn't be a list of every player who might get picked in the draft, but rather players who are likely to be taken early (day 1, maybe?). Also, the players should be either alphebetized or ordered by somebody's rankings at each position. Why is the order arbitrary (and I notice that people are moving players around)? Also, the player lists should have links for the players' football teams the first time the team is mentioned (I'd do this but I'm too lazy). Oren0 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Big DT is right. Last years table is tight. Brings back bad memories though about my raiders skipping vince young :(

Current ranking

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Should Baltimore be 27 and San Diego be 28 since they're eliminated? Kingjeff 04:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't actually work that way. The primary criterion is W/L record in the regular season; playoff status moves you within a tied group, but the only way you pick ahead of a team with a worse regular-season record is if that team makes the Super Bowl. (So, now that the Chargers have been eliminated, they are guaranteed pick #30, after all non-SB teams.)

I have adjusted the listing to accurately reflect the current status of picks. Samer 04:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody reorganized the table in a rather confusing way (adding rows marked "Super Bowl runner-up" and "Super Bowl champion"); I re-worked it so that there are still 32 rows, with the last six rows bearing the title "27-32." Samer 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, someone reorganized the table. Although Baltimore and SD have been eliminated, the current order makes clear(er) the fact that all picks except the SB picks are based primarily on record. To say that Indy and Chicago "own" picks #31 and #32 requires an additional explanation as to why the teams are listed that way. Samer 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Table for pick movement

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wouldn't a table similar to this one be preferable to the current listing? Samer 16:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Round Pick # Team receiving pick Team giving up pick Reason
1 New England Seattle Traded for Deion Branch
2 New York Jets Washington Traded for 35th pick in 2006 NFL Draft (used to select Rocky McIntosh)
2 Tampa Bay Indianapolis Traded for Anthony McFarland
3 N/A Cincinnati Used in Supplemental Draft to select Ahmad Brooks
3 Denver Washington (via Atlanta) Atlanta acquired the pick for T.J. Duckett, and traded it to Denver for Ashley Lelie
3/4 New Orleans Philadelphia Traded for Donte Stallworth (conditional pick: drops to 4th if not re-signed for 2007)
4 Atlanta Denver Acquired during 2006 NFL Draft
4 New Orleans Kansas City Traded for Michael Bennett
4 San Francisco New York Jets Traded for Kevan Barlow (conditional pick)
4 San Francisco Washington Traded for Brandon Lloyd
4 Tennessee Baltimore Traded for Steve McNair
5 St. Louis Buffalo Traded for Anthony Hargrove
5 Oakland New England Traded for Doug Gabriel
6 Detroit Miami Traded for Joey Harrington (conditional)
6 Kansas City Dallas Traded for Scott Fujita
6 Tennessee Indianapolis Traded for 238th pick in 2006 NFL Draft (used to select T. J. Rushing
6 Tennessee San Diego Traded for Billy Volek (conditional)
7 Green Bay NY Jets Traded for Steve Morley
7 Cleveland San Francisco Traded (with Ken Dorsey) for Trent Dilfer
7 Dallas NY Jets Traded for Sean Ryan
7 NY Jets Detroit Traded for Jon McGraw
7 Dallas New Orleans Traded for Scott Shanle
7 New England Arizona Traded for Brandon Gorin (conditional)
7 Chicago Cleveland Traded for Lenny Friedman
Unkn Indianapolis Baltimore Traded for Gerome Sapp (conditional)
Unkn Baltimore Indianapolis Traded for Ryan LaCasse
Unkn Cincinnati St. Louis Traded for Dave Ragone (conditional)
Unkn Cincinnati St. Louis Traded for Dave Ragone (conditional)
Unkn Oakland NY Jets Traded for Bobby Hamilton
Unkn NY Jets Tampa Bay Traded for Doug Jolley
Unkn NY Jets Minnesota Traded for Brooks Bollinger
Unkn San Francisco Houston Traded for Cody Pickett (conditional)
Unkn New Orleans Atlanta Traded for Wayne Gandy

The table should have pick number because the order doesn't coincide with the pick number after the 1st round. Kingjeff 21:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


I think the way trades are currently listed is incorrect. Look at the 4th pick of the 2nd round - it should be Philadelphia Eagles: from Cleveland through Dallas (because it was originally "from Cleveland" and Philadelphia received it "through Dallas" - not the other way around)

Combine?

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

What do you think of only listing players invited to the official combine on this list? It is a NPOV list of the top players in the draft and there is rarely ever a top pick not invited. You can find the list here--Thomas.macmillan 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Bender235 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the title of the section be changed from "ESPN.com Top Draft Prospects" to something that reflects that the list is the "2007 NFL Combine Invitees"? --Sprkee 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That is a fine name, but the two are synonymous. --Thomas.macmillan 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see anything on ESPN.com that had this list, or that was even titled "Top Draft Prospects" (following the link), so I think the latter name is more accurate.-Sprkee 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Draft order appears incorrect for round 7

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

The Vikings, Texans, Dolphins band has the same order for rounds six and seven. Presumably, this is an error. Round seven should be Vikings, Texans and then Dolphins (as opposed to Dolphins, Vikings, Texans).

Fyo 22:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with deleting those rounds is that a lot of (useful!) information is lost. Specifically, information regarding trades (of picks). I would suggest at least having a list of trades. Fyo 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Support a list of trades and reinclusion of draft order once it is finalized. --Thomas.macmillan 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to include this information *now*? It's not like the information is subject to change and it's relevance (in terms of interest, anyway) is arguably greater now than later. Fyo 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It is actually subject to change. Once the compensatoy picks are annouced, then it will be fine to do the whole draft. So far, only the 1st and 2nd round draft orders have been annouced.--Thomas.macmillan 01:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It is not that difficult to add the compensatory picks, mainly because they are at the end of each round! If you are concerned with the amount of work with regards to changing the numbering of the picks, I will take it upon myself to fix the numbering once the compensatory selections are added. There is really no reason not to have rounds 3-7 in there besides the fact that it might be more work. The amount of work is minimal, and less so when compared to the amount of work I did in creating the draft order for the rounds. Let's keep it in for now. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Listing the picks now would be inaccurate and misleading. I am not concerned with the amount of work needed to do it, I am concerned with accuracy. It is not that hard to wait, the compensatory picks and the official draft order will be annouced shortly.--Thomas.macmillan 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, compromise? List the order, but don't list the pick numbers? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Even the order is misleading. I suggest we wait until we can find verifiable sources for the rest of the draft, because no cite lists the rounds beyond the 1st and 2nd yet as finalized (excluding the coin flip at 3-4)--Thomas.macmillan 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. See http://www.thehuddlereport.com/nickelpackage/draftorder.shtml for a listing of all current picks. [If you're going to make the argument that the total list is "inaccurate and misleading," then what about the table above that shows the movement of picks?] Samer 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how the order is misleading? The NFL has explicitly stated how the selection order will cycle, yet you still assert that the selection order is incorrect. I'd just like to know your thought process. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Imagine a fan of any team comes on to the site today and see that his/her team has 7 selections. Come draft day, even with no trades, the team will very likely have more than that. It is best to wait to have an "official" draft order on the site until the league "officially" sets the draft order!--Thomas.macmillan 03:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought that is what the disclaimer at the beginning of the section was for -- to indicate that this is only an order, which excludes compensatory selections, and that it is likely to change. That's why it's designated as a future sporting event. If any user were to take away that their team "has only 7 selections" from Wikipedia without reading the disclaimer, then it'd be their fault. I still don't see the need to not include the information. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The pick order for the "normal" seven rounds HAS now been determined. The only issue right now is the compensatory picks. And I would argue that it makes more sense to have that information--with a disclaimer that additional picks will be added--than to not have the information at all. At the very least, it makes no sense to leave off the third-round picks. Samer 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Projections list

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't have a problem with such a list (especially since it's cited), but these are (probably) going to change multiple times over the next few weeks. A row needs to be added listing the dates those mocks were last updated. Samer 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I unprotected the page because the reason for its protection is unacceptable. Preemptive protection is explicitly listed as a reason NOT to protect a page, per WP:PROT. However, I do realize that there is going to be some protection, but I hope that we can overlook those annoyances and leave the protection off. Obviously if it gets unbearable, we may have to protect again. However, the pros of leaving a page unprotected, especially a high profile page like this, may bring in a many potential good Wikipedia users who will contribute in a positive manner. Pepsidrinka 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What troubles me is not so much the IP vandalism, but the fact that the IP vandalism is causing edit conflicts to constructive edits, making said edits more difficult to fix as other IPs vandalize. I've already blocked 2 IPs and there's a good chance I'd block more if it were left unprotected. The risks of unprotection outweight the benefits IMO. It's now no longer pre-emptive lke it was before.--Wizardman 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
My fault, sorry about all that. But I agree with Wizardman with respect to vandalism causing edit conflicts with constructive edits (see the history of 2006 NFL Draft for more details): sometimes vandalism would stay for a few minutes on the page, other times it was reverted instantly. I will concede the matter on getting new users to Wikipedia: I do recall many good faith IP users, but I also remember those who were being disruptive. I dunno, though. We could maybe perhaps lift the protection tomorrow as it isn't as high profile as the first day (but that's OR and more than likely a false statement). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The protection of this page is idiotic in my opinion. Instead of being actually updated constantly now we see the fifth pick, when we could see the 22th pick already.

Without getting into the pros and cons of protection: if you aren't seeing the latest updates, you may wish to try bypassing your cache -- the table is being updated with considerable quickness. Rtucker 20:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please unprotect this article? Links to player pages could be added by other readers, while others are posting the picks. I dont really see why it is protected.--Phishininau 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bears 2nd Round Pick?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone know how the Chargers aquired this pick?

http://www.nfl.com/draft/drafttracker/trades Zhinz 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
References have been added for all trades as of the third round. I'd encourage everyone to go through the references and ensure that the links work and the titles of the articles are correct as well. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Name Question

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I changed Ikaika Alama-Francis to Ikaika Alma-Francis because that was what the ESPN.com Draft Tracker said. However, I now see that both names have hits on Google for them. I have no idea which is correct.Zhinz 01:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I understand the caution in the Wikipedia style manual about overlinking, but why oughtn't all the occurrences of a college or pro team's name in the draft results table be a link? As it stands, someone who is particularly interested in e.g. David Harris (pick 47) would have to search up the table for the first mention of the Jets, the Packers, and the University of Michigan in order to get to those organizations' pages, instead of just clicking links by Harris' name. Why oughtn't there just be links here as well? 69.89.110.244 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you in these type of situations (e.g, draft articles). Someone mentioned in teh current FLC for 2003 NBA Draft that if someone were to look at only the second round, it is quite silly to expect that person to find the team name in the first round table just to click the link. The link should be readily available to click. The purpose of a link is, IMO, that anytime someone comes upon a word/term in an article, if there is a high probability that someone would want to read more on that article, than it should be linked. Pepsidrinka 05:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, 2005 NFL Draft is already a featured list, and it follows the rule we're currently using here. --Maxamegalon2000 05:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The way I see it, we keep it as-is for now, and if someone raises a concern when we go for FL status, we can fix it. But I don't want to do all the work and hear "The article is far too overlinked, get rid of the links." If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This argument seems to lose sight of the reason that this (or any) page exists. Its purpose is to allow the interested user to have information about the 2007 Draft and other related information (i.e. information about the teams and universities involved) at his or her fingertips, not to win wikiaccolades. Linking throughout the chart would accomplish this better than linking each team/university only once. If this violates wikipedia policy, and puts FL status at risk, then it seems it is the policy should be changed, not the number of links. 69.89.111.190 15:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding links to every little section simply looks messy; it's fine the way we're creating it now. As creator of most of the NFL Draft FLs, I pretty much know what they want over there my now: no redlinks, no overlinking. So pretty much once things settle down we're almost guaranteed an FL in its current state.--Wizardman 16:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could debate the aesthetic value of links in every section, but that would miss the point. Links in every section makes the list more useful. And if the folks who evaluate for FL-hood are more concerned with aesthetics than utility, then they need to re-evaluate their criteria. 69.89.111.190 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not mention it at the talk page? Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(alignment reset) ... or perhaps here. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Players that are Drafted

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why do a vast majority of the articles about players that were drafted in this draft say that they actually play for the team that they were drafted by? No player is a member of a team until they sign a contract. Considering that this is draft weekend, nobody has signed a contract, so is there a way that we can take off all the phrases that say that the player plays for the team? Come on guys, use your head. Thanks! Manningmbd 01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, you'd essentially be left with no article for the lesser known players who don't yet have articles. We assume that players are going to sign a contract (it's very rare that any player doesn't sign with a team he is drafted by), and make specific note when other circumstances arise. The other solution is to fix it yourself, changing the wording to say "Joe Schmo was drafted by the [NFL team] in the 2007 NFL Draft...." If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks everybody for all of your hard work during this arduous task of maintaining this article. I know we aren't finished yet, but I'd just like to thank everyone who has contributed to this article so far, and encourage you to contribute tomorrow during the final four rounds. That being said, have a great day! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixing positions

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

2 players each have been assgined generic positions:

  • Offensive lineman for Leroy Harris (Titans) and Mansfield wrotto (Seahawks).
  • Defensive lineman for Antonio Johnson (Titans) and Kareem Brown (Patriots)

Is there a case where the leroy can be categorised as Center; Mansfield as guard and the 2 defensive linemen as DTs so that they are in line with the positions assigned to other draftees. Please let me knowKalyan 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are generic positions for defensive lineman, offensive lineman, and kick returner either. Kareem Brown is listed as a defensive end on his article, Leroy Harris is listed as a guard, Syndric Steptoe is listed as a wide receiver and at NFL.com he is listed as a receiver/kick returner, Antonio Johnson is listed as a defensive tackle, and Mansfield Wrotto is listed as a guard at NFL.com. Why do we give them generic positions? Professor Davies 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable undrafted players

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Can we define the criteria for inclusion to this section? It looks like these are meant to be players who were not drafted but signed on a free agents, is that right? Johntex\talk 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This might be an appropriate place to reference List of 2007 NFL Combine invitees. For the said page, we could have tables listing all players invited in a sortable table, with name, position, school, NFL team (in which we describe how they are acquired). Then take those who were invited yet not drafted and add them to the list. Or, if that list is too big, we could list all players who were signed, yet not drafted. Perhaps this is best done with a table? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
One sortable table could cover a lot of ground. It could potentially show everything including the draft picks themselves. Johntex\talk 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
On which page? Here or the Combine invitees? This page is already getting too long, so here may not be such a good idea. Thoughts? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not combine all the current tables here into one sortable table that also adds the new information? Johntex\talk 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So "Player selections" as one big sortable table, and then the undrafted ones a second table at the bottom? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Schools

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think it would be great to create a table arranged by School - so that anyone can quickly find out how many players were drafted from a given school. To save space, we could restrict it to schools with multiple picks. Thoughts? Johntex\talk 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just add it to the lead section, along with conference totals (better choice, in my opinion). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, i have nominated the wikipage to FL candidates. Please leave a comment FLC-2007 NFL Draft. Kalyan 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Record Viewage

I was reading Sports Illustraited today and there was an interesting piece of info. "38 million viewers who watch the NFL draft on ESPN, ESPN2, or the NFL Network, the most ever for the event." I was wondering if anyone could put this in they're own words and post it with a reference. Its from the Sports Illustrated, May 14, 2007 , Page 22, "Go Figure". I would post this myself but I don't know how to use the references.

Comment out section - Notable undrafted players

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When the article went to FL candidature, there was a lot of opposition based on the section on "Notable undrafted players". The best point was made by IanManka that we need to add players over the year(s) that have made the cut in NFL and now might be too early to add names (most of these additions are roster try-outs and might be cut by the time pre-season starts). So, i will comment out the section and we can remove the comment tag on the section when the final roster is made available at the beginning of the NFL 2007 season, later in the year. Please let me know if there is any issues with this. Kalyan 07:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Done Replaced with new source. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed This link is now marked as dead and using an archived copy. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Replaced this ref with another I found. — DeeJayK (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Replaced with another source. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Replaced with another source. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Replaced with another source. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Replaced with new source. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed This link is now marked as dead and using an archived copy. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Replaced with new source. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed This link is now marked as dead and using an archived copy. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed This link is now marked as dead and using an archived copy. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Replaced with new source. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Replaced with new source. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed This link is now marked as dead and using an archived copy. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Fixed URL. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Marked URL as dead to use archive URL. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Replaced with new source. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Replaced with new source. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Marked URL as dead to use archive URL. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Fixed URL. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Marked URL as dead to use archive URL. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Marked URL as dead to use archive URL. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 16:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  Fixed Replaced URL. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_NFL_draft/Archive_1&oldid=1206180717"