Template talk:New England Patriots roster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American football Portal
This template is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary on the comment page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is part of the New England Patriots subproject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the New England Patriots and the National Football League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Alphabetical order

Before editing, please note that the roster is in alphabetical order by last name. it is not grouped by position.--Alhutch 05:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  • If you have not noticed, there currently seems to be two versions (and therefore no consensus) of NFL team roster templates on the NFL team pages. For an example of the other version, see on Template:Miami Dolphins roster. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
somebody put a second link to doug flutie on this one, i guess not realizing it was in alphabetical order, because they put the second one up next to tom brady.--Alhutch 07:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney Harrison Designation...

I'm not certain what the correct designation for Harrison should be right now. But, considering that he's going to be playing this weekend against Cleveland, he should probably be taken off the "Reserve Lists" list. Bjewiki 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the team has to make a roster move to add him to the active roster. I believe the exemption goes away once he's going to play. But Pats1 probably knows better than me.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, someone definitely has to be released. But, considering we know Harrison was practicing with the Pats this week, and is playing on Sunday, we do know that he's back on the active roster and off of the reserve list. So, he should probably be moved. Bjewiki 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If no one has been released, he's not on the active roster.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you can be practicing if you're on the "Reserve List". Bjewiki 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just checked Patriots web site. It shows 54 players on the "Active Roster" [1], so I guess that means that Harrison still falls under the special exemption? But still, they list him on the active roster. Bjewiki 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, the Patriots (technically the commissioner) will lift his exemption if they choose for Sunday's game. This isn't anything new, just a technicality most people aren't aware of. Check out all the suspended players coming back (Dominic Rhodes, Torrie Cox, Anthony Hargrove, Ryan Tucker, Fakhir Brown, Jared Allen, and Obafemi Ayanbadejo -- if he wasn't released). They all have exemptions - that's procedure. If the Pats choose to have Harrison activated for Sunday, then they'll have to make a roster move. But for now he is under a 1-game exemption. End of subject. Pats1 T/C 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right! It's the 1-game roster exemption that allows them to have 54 active players. See here [2], he's off the reserve/suspended list, he's no longer on a "reserve list". As i pointed out above, even the Patriots web site currently lists 54 players on the "Active" roster (which is correct, 53 + the exemption). Bjewiki 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

An "exempted" player is NOT on the active roster. Larry Johnson, after he signed his extension, was granted an exemption and was NOT on the active roster. If Harrison CAN be activated in time for Sunday's game, but he HAS NOT yet. You're preempting that. I also don't know why you're not arguing this point on any other of the roster templates for the other 6 or so players that were reinstated this week. Does WP:POINT have anything to do with it? Honestly, this isn't complicated. Harrison is currently on the Commissioner's Exemption list. Not the Active Roster. That is a fact. And as far as the Pats' website goes, I've never seen them list a player under an exemption list, and the last player to be suspended was Cloud in 2003. Do I need to get into my whole "why official team websites' rosters aren't always right?" rant again? Pats1 T/C 20:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the exemption means the Patriots can keep him off the active roster for a game if they don't feel he's ready. If they want him to play, a move must be made. Therefore he's not active until that happens. And Pats1 is right - team websites don't know jack. I guarantee you Pats1 and I both know more about the NFL than the 32 people editing NFL team website rosters.►Chris NelsonHolla! 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
First off, there was no WP:POINT stuff going on. I'm sure there were other players coming back from 4-game suspensions last week, but to be honest, I can't name one of them, so i'm guessing that they are pretty low profile. Considering he's not listed on the NFL.com roster page, i'm okay with not adding him to the regular roster. It's just I don't like him being on the reserve list. He's actually kind of in an in-between limbo right now. Not on the reserve list, not on the active roster, just by himself in a special Commissioners Exemption state. If this state was going to last any more than the next two days, I would probably make a suggestion that it be it's own category, but seeing as it's about to expire, that's kind of a moot point. Seeing as he has been practicing this week, it's pretty clear he's not on the "Reserve list"...
Secondly, I find it ironic that this morning the two of you were defending reverting that newbie's revision (Tank's #), because neither of you could find it on the team or league websites. Now this afternoon you are both saying that those websites suck, and are not really that accurate. So, which is it? Bjewiki 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm glad you're "fine" with the correct way of doing things...
To clarify on team websites - they are often not quickly updated, missing people, don't have guys in the right place, etc. However, if they DO have a new guy and they have his new number, almost 99% of the time it will be correct. They had to get that info directly from somewhere - they didn't just make it up. So unless a guy chooses a number then switches immediately, if the team has it, it's safe to assume it's right. We have shitloads of experience with every NFL team website, and I bet each of use could list the strengths and weaknesses of each. How thorough they are, how quick they are updating, how accurate, etc.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
So, basically the team websites and the NFL websites are good sources, when you say they are? That sounds like it makes the Wiki Roster Templates very hard to pass WP:VERIFY criteria. Bjewiki 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, if you'd listen you'd understand. I didn't say they are good when I decide, I said they are good at certain thing and bad at certain things. Let's try this again:

  • Team websites are good about being accurate on jersey numbers they recently add. Practically never wrong once they add it.
  • Team websites are bad at being thorough and quick in updating, among other things.

This is not rocket science, and stop trying to turn it around like there's a hole in our reasoning because, quite frankly, there isn't. I know every team website like the back of my hand; I could list for you all the team sites that don't keep a list of transactions in a second. When it comes to team websites, I've been to them all enough to know what they do well and what they don't do well, what they can be trusted on and what they cannot.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What he said... Pats1 T/C 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only person who thinks that "updating jersey numbers" and "updating everything" are the same thing? Last time I checked, the jersey numbers classifies under "everything". This sounds completely contradictory. You say they are good at updating jersey numbers, but they are bad at updating everything. They can't be both. Ksy92003(talk) 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Everything else..." Pats1 T/C 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Last comment on the issue at either talk page, because I don't really care what anyone else thinks and it's not going to alter my behavior.
What I said is NOT contradictory, and if you believe it is you didn't not understand it. I said they are good at being accurate on jersey numbers WHEN THEY ADD THEM. I did not say they always have them updated quickly. So some teams suck at adding jersey numbers - some practice squad players have no had them listed all year. But WHEN they are added to the team site, you can pretty much assume they are right. That's WHEN they add them. But they don't always and they don't always add players in a timely manner.
You guys seem incapable of understanding. So what I'm going to do is this - ignore you and continue what I've always done. Sound good? Ready, break!►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, then on the Tank Johnson jersey number issue, did you ever consider that the Cowboys team website just hadn't gotten around to updating the jersey numbers, since you say that they take a long time? Did you ever consider that Ppw1148 got the number from another source? Ksy92003(talk) 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course I considered it. I've said I looked for it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
How many websites have you checked? The timestamps suggest that you spent nearly no time (only a couple minutes difference, which isn't enough time). Don't you think you were at least a bit too quick in reverting? Probably not. Ksy92003(talk) 21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, if you ever made a habit of reading what people say and interpreting it correctly, I checked the Cowboys' website for any change, but before that I had checked many places for such info on my own.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as Sasha Callahan's latest edit goes, keep in mind that when Harrison IS activated, there will have to be a corresponding roster move. And when that happens, the Patriots will most likely announce that Harrison has been activated. But placing him on the active roster before that happens means that he is "activated," which is not accurate. Pats1 T/C 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you even looked at the Pats website? If not, here's the link. Ksy92003(talk) 22:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Gotta love a couple of editors undoing correct edits because they don't understand how things work in the NFL. Very productive, Ksy.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, because I'm brain dead and for some reason, I can see Rodney Harrison's name under the active roster. Oh well, I'll try to find help for the psychological issue I apparently have because I, for some reason, see his name under "Active". Ksy92003(talk) 22:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

...as you prove my point of "not knowing how things work." Exactly what I mean.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So apparently you're denying that his name is under "Active". I don't see the difference between his name being listed under the Active roster and him being on the active roster. Ksy92003(talk) 22:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not denying what the page says. But I have a knowledge of how the NFL works, so I know it's not really accurate. The Patriots' website is just choosing to not be thorough and completely accurate. We are, or were, until you reverted a correct edit.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you implying that the Patriot's official website is wrong then? If that's the case, then we can't use them as a source for these templates. Ksy92003(talk) 22:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Dude, you don't know what you're talking about and I'm not going to hold your hand through any education. You arguing on a subject of which you basically have little knowledge, and the only reason you aren't in complete understanding and agreement with myself is your lack of knowledge. It's not a personal flaw, you just have not put in the time to understand it all, and that's fine. But Pats1 and I acquired our knowledge on the subject by ourselves, you can too.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Chris (and my extension me, I suppose) is right here, ksy92003, and you need to stop denying it. Almost every team website is going to know that Harrison served a 4-game suspension, and, on the Monday after the 4th game, put him back on the active roster. If you polled the average beat writer or PR director on the average NFL team, they wouldn't have A CLUE that ALL suspended players get a 1-game roster exemption the week they come back. So your average NFL team website roster (like the Pats') is just going to put the previously suspended player back under the active roster for the sake of not confusing themselves or their readers ("what is a commissioner's exemption"). However, good roster sites that know what they're talking about (like, uh, Wikipedia and a very good one at http://www.localsports.ca/nfl_rosters/) will put the player under the exempted list.
Oh, and by the way. Under Article XXII, Section 6 of the National Football League/National Football League Players Association Collective Bargaining Agreement, "Rosters shall consist of the following categories of players: Active; Inactive; Reserve Injured; Reserve Physically Unable to Perform; Exempt Commissioner Permission; Non Football Illness/Injury; Practice Squad." Notice how "Active" and "Exempt Commissioner Permission" are listed separately.
The prosecution rests its case. Pats1 T/C 00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll add that under Article XXXVIII, Section 7, players on the Commissioner's Exemption list do NOT receive credit towards an Accredited Season (i.e., what determines a player's minimum base salary), more proof as to why Exempt Commissioner's Permission players aren't "active" players. Pats1 T/C 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone!?!? Pats1 T/C 16:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is some simple logic which even you should understand: The team site says Harrison is on the active roster. You say that your knowledge says that he can't be on the roster right now. Therefore, you're saying that the site is wrong. If it's wrong, then it isn't right, which means it shouldn't be used as a source. But you use the team sites for all 30 teams for their rosters, meaning you feel it is trustworthy. It's like for you, these websites are only good when you say they are. The official website has him on the active roster, so are you saying that they are lying? Ksy92003(talk) 22:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. You don't want to try to understand, then I won't help you. I don't care enough about the issue anyway. He'll probably be active Sunday, so I can deal with the Patriots' roster template being slightly inaccurate for two days.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm just telling you what the Pats website says. You've used it for all the 30 templates, and you say they're perfectly accurate. Now, you come out and say that it isn't. Earlier here, you said that the websites are good at this kind of information. I don't know why now, you say that it is wrong. Hypocritical again. You seem to think that it's only right when you say it is and is wrong the rest of the time. Ksy92003(talk) 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
And you seem to be incapable of reading comprehension. I've explained what team websites are good at and what they are not. I've explained that they are reliable in certain aspects and unreliable in others, in my experience. It's not my fault if you can't understand something clear as day and easy as basic addition. I feel like I'm trying to teach Japanese to a monkey.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Because what you say doesn't make sense. You're saying that the website can only be partially trusted. At first, you said that the website was good at this kind of stuff. You said that it is good at updating this kind of stuff, albeit not that quick. The only thing you said was a problem was the speed at which they make the changes to the roster on those websites, saying that they do it too slow. You never said that they were inaccurate. The only bad think you said about the website was that they update it too slowly. It's updated now, and you said that it's accurate when updated, except for this instance right now. Ksy92003(talk) 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What Chris said wasn't difficult to comprehend at all. With things such as Waived/Injured, Reserve/NFL Europa Non-Football Injury, and other roster technicalities, official websites usually don't get them right (I could go into a bunch more, but I've had myriad discussions about this, the most recent I can remember being from the Seahawks). This is when team websites aren't good sources and others are. However, when a team lists a player as having a certain number, it can be trusted. There's nothing complicated about a number. Pats1 T/C 00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're saying that the official websites don't always get them right, then how come Chris was eager to revert somebody's edit when the website didn't say so? Ksy92003(talk) 01:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even going to attempt to answer this one. I don't know how else to explain it to you. This is ridiculous. Pats1 T/C 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It only makes sense because you simply don't get it, even though it's right in front of your face just waiting to be comprehended. It is my opinion, based on this discussion, that you are currently incapable of comprehending reality on this matter. For that reason, I am dropping out of the conversation because it's a road to nowhere. I wish you the best of luck in your pursuit of better NFL knowledge or, perhaps, an epiphany.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lucky for you, I don't know the meaning of "epiphany" but it sounds like a personal attack.
I'm sorry that you feel that I don't have a clue about anything. But hey, nothing I can do about that. I'm sorry that you feel that you can say that a website is only valid when you say it is. Ksy92003(talk) 23:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You should go report me for it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, quite a lot of conversation going on here. A quick response to Chris' statement, "But I have a knowledge of how the NFL works, so I know it's not really accurate." - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Bjewiki 00:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna report you for making what I thought sounded like a personal attack when you said a word to me that I don't know what it means. Nice try. What, are you trying to get me into trouble by asking me to make false accusations?
You've been eager to report Chris in the past. Pats1 T/C 00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reported him in the past when I've seen that he's violated rules. Somebody does something wrong, I report them, I'm doing my job as a Wikipedian. Ksy92003(talk) 01:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Most certainly. But I think it's become clear you've taken it a step beyond and are constantly monitoring Chris (hell, you even asked him if you could do it) and searching for anything incriminating. A casual observer would probably say you want him to be punished further, but that's another story for another day... Pats1 T/C 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And Chris, some of your statements give the impression that you think you're God, that because you know how the NFL works that you can' dictate what the rest of us does. News flash: you're not omnipotent. Ksy92003(talk) 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I just think that you have no idea what Chris was saying, for whatever reason. And it wasn't hard to comprehend, but you insisted on continuing on with "you don't know everything Chris" or "why are you being hypocritical Chris" or "why are you contradicting yourself Chris." Pats1 T/C 00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I know what Chris is saying. He's saying that the team's official website is wrong. He, and you, have said that the team's official website isn't always accurate. How come Chris was very quick in reverting somebody else's edit because it didn't say so on the team's official website? I thought it could be wrong sometimes, or at least that's what you and Chris have continuously been saying. Ksy92003(talk) 01:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Like I said before, you've proven to be unable to comprehend the logic behind what he/I am saying, so I'm not going to even attempt to explain it to you for a third time. Just read what I've said before and maybe your epiphany will come. Pats1 T/C 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Man, it's amazing how long a discussion we can have in 12 hours. Pats1, if you don't want to try to explain it, then I get the impression that you agree with me then. Again, I understand what you and Chris are saying. But what I'm saying is that how come all of a sudden the team's website is wrong according to Chris, when earlier, he was saying that if that website doesn't say it, then it isn't true? It really seems like the website is correct whenever Chris says it is because it seems like he dictates when it is accurate and when it isn't. Ksy92003(talk) 01:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"I don't want to try and explain it." Uh, I have. Chris has. Multiple times. The same thing. Over. And over. And over. Again. However, you've disregarded it (or just genuinely not understood it), just as you have to the first three paragraphs in these edits. Care to weigh in on those? Pats1 T/C 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)