Talk:National Football League lore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Football League lore article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Former featured article candidate This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
American football Portal
This article 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-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.)
Archive
Archives
About archives

Contents

[edit] The recovery

On the same day Bill Parcells revealed his 11 quarterback commandments for Tony Romo, Tony Romo started off really badly, but then he managed to come back in the 4th quarter and drop the Bills to 1-4. That was the best game I've seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardII (talk • contribs) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giants 2007 Season

Suggestions: The kick II - Lawrence Tynes 47 yard game winnin kick in below zero conditions. The Catch II - Eli Manning scrambles away from multiple defenders, to throw it up to a covered David Tyree, who somehow catches it by trapping the ball with his helmet, on a game winning drive. Catch has recently been dubbed "the helmet catch" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.45.17 (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any citations for these nicknames? Perhaps something from ESPN, Yahoo! Sports, or SI? I'm sure there's gunna be some chatter about Tyree catch in the days to come though. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, I continually point out that this is not WikiNews. It is an encyclopedia article on NFL lore. Can anyone with an intelligence slightly above that of the average hedgehog claim that anything from the 2007 season is already lore? Of course not. So, unless we get some time travelers here to document that one of the games will be referred to regularly 10-20 years from now, they do not in any way belong in this article. -- kainaw™ 13:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm absolutely sure that Eli's incredible scramble + throw + catch will make it onto this page someday, but please let people at least agree on a proper name to call it before even thinking about putting it up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.205.194 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kainaw, I don't think it would take 10-20 years to determine that this play (or other significant plays) will become part of NFL lore. Considering the magnitude of the game, the significance of the result of the play, the effort exerted by the players I think you can say with certainty this will go down in NFL lore. When the NFL commish is already claiming this as one of the greatest plays ever I think its status is pretty much cemented and doesn't need a "historical wait". This is a wikipedia article, not a hall of fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.171.86.140 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kainaw, this article does not really follow that format. The "Tackle II" was added into this article and (basically) approved almost the day after it happened because there enough media references to back it up. That, and it kinda took them to the AFC Championship --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That is not correct. It was added, removed, and then re-added by a person who apparently argued with himself about it and claimed that debate agreed to keep it. There was never a consensus to keep it. One person said keep it. I said remove it. Nobody else chimed in. It is still by opinion that anything at all after 1998 should be removed because there is absolutely no sane argument that it is "lore" and not just "a cool game I saw a few years ago." -- kainaw™ 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seen mentions of it called "The Helmet" but mostly it's on discussion boards. Unlike other lore, sports lore doesn't become lore years later, it happens instantly. Peter King of Sports Illustrated said that "Tyree will be a legend in Giant lore"[1] because of the play. The Boston Globe also nominated it as a "Play of the Game"[2]. We don't, however, seem to have an "official" name for it yet. The-bus (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The key part of the quite from Peter King is the qualifier "will be". It is not, at this time, a legend of Giant lore. It appears that people want an article titled "Cool stuff I saw on TV." If that is the case, rename the article. As it stands, the title is "NFL Lore" and half of the article is not in any way lore. -- kainaw™ 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eli Manning to David Tyree

Eventually, that will be Lore material. KyuuA4 (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes. I am starting to agree with its removal -- after I saw the Lynn Swann catch. KyuuA4 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This deserves to be lore material, regardless of how old the game is. It's not just the play itself (which was amazing enough), it's the circumstances surrounding it. It directly led to the Giants upsetting the Patriots in an extremely dramatic, last second way. It ended the Patriots' winning streak and stopped them short of their perfect season. And it happened in the Super Bowl, the biggest game of the year. There are enough factors in play to call it an "instant classic", as even writers like Bill Simmons and Peter King have acknowledged. Imposing an arbitrary waiting time on this particular game is unnecessary in my opinion. Btk101 (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting that we can't name the 3rd and 5 XLII play as lore, even though many call it at the very least one of the top five plays ever made, but we have the River City Relay listed which is simply a play that turned out to be quite meaningless in the end, for both teams. This play's place in history is not up for debate, you can't make a legitimate arguement as to the importance, or lack thereof, this is not speculation. Vil51J (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is lore (again)

As mentioned above, half of this article is not lore. It is merely something that was cool at the time but will be forgotten about in a couple years. Thinking that something can instantly become lore is simply based on ignorance. For example, what if someone ran a kick back for a touchdown in four games in a row? That would be instant lore, right? It doesn't happen every year. But, I seriously doubt most people can name the player who did it - and it happened a mere 5 years ago. What we need here is some serious discussion about what makes "lore" and what is merely "something kind of cool that I think I might remember a few years from now." Every time I bring it up, everyone is too scared to talk about it because it might turn out that some game they liked last year doesn't qualify as being lore yet. Again, I will suggest it. The NFL Hall of Fame is a place for players of lore. A player cannot even be nominated until he has been retired for 5 years. Therefore, I suggest that a game cannot even be nominated as being lore until it is 5 years old - based on NFL's own standard. -- kainaw™ 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For starters, it has to be unusual and isn't duplicated. Rare events. For example, the Fog Bowl. KyuuA4 (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And in the case of the River City Relay. It was your regular football play utilizing laterals to get a last second desperation touchdown. The play worked; however, it's lorish because of the irony at the end (missing the extra point). KyuuA4 (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Dante Hall? I'm not even a Chiefs fan. Was I right? The-bus (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a Chiefs fan (WP:CHIEFS creator). Dante Hall returned a kick for a TD in four straight games, but obviously, Devin Hester has eclipsed that feat by lightyears. Even from a die-hard Chiefs fan like me, I don't think it stands with lore like The Catch or anything. Although it was great to see it happen to the Broncos twice in one game, I don't think it's "lore." conman33 (. . .talk) 06:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
So, once again, nobody is willing to discuss "What is lore?" I am beginning to feel that this page should just be deleted and a new page title "Cool NFL Games" should be created since that is what the editors here think we need. -- kainaw™ 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In KyuuA4's example, If the River City Relay was added one year after the game, would that have been acceptable? Was it necessary to add it the day it happened? How was anyone to know it was lore on the day it happened? I use the Hall of Fame for reference. We all know that Brett Farve will be in the Hall of Fame on the very first vote. But, it will not be until 5 years after he retires. Does the 5 year delay mean that he isn't Hall of Fame material? If it took 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, or 5 years before we added the River City Relay, would that mean that the game wasn't lore material? I simply do not understand why we have to debate adding the cool game of the week every single week of the football season. Why is a mandatory wait time so bad? -- kainaw™ 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Giants fan or anything, but I disagree - I believe Eli's "Great Escape" play to Tyree belongs here. Sometimes you have to consider the context - it's the SUPER BOWL, the huge underdog Giants, trailing the undefeated Patriots with under two minutes to play, on third down... that play was unbelievable and kept alive one of the most spectacular drives you will ever see, that eventually led to the winning TD. There is no waiting period necessary - sometimes you see a play that you immediately know will be famous forever.

On this topic, there is no reason "4th and 26" and "The Tackle II" are in this article. Very few people outside of the Eagles fanbase even remembers the 4th and 26 play, for example, and even fewer of them care or would rate it among the best plays in NFL history. I'm honestly surprised that there is debate about the Eli play on the final game-winning drive of a Super Bowl, yet the Eagles play (which is mostly inconsequential in the grand scheme of the NFL) remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.123.223.100 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This situation here is that those games ("4th and 26" and "The Tackle II") were added right after the game. Because they were all over the news for the following week, editors claimed that it was worthy of being in this article. If a waiting period was in place (even a 3 month period in those cases), it is likely that neither one would have been included in the article. If a waiting period was enforced right now, the last Super Bowl would not be included right now, but will likely be included when the waiting period is over. Does that mean that the game isn't lore? No. It simply means that we all agree to wait and see if an event stands the test of time before adding it. -- kainaw™ 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And I had to get rid of "The Kick" - or Vinatieri's game winner for Super Bowl XXXVI, only because a game winning field goal for a Super Bowl was not unique. Uniqueness does bear some weight here. With The Drive, many know that it was John Elway's drive against the Cleveland Browns. By the way, I question Tackle II as well. Not sure about 4th and 26 yet. KyuuA4 (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is my point - if "4th and 26" and "The Tackle II" were added right after the game, why haven't they been removed (for the same reasons that the Eli play won't be added)? They certainly have not "stood the test of time" in general NFL lore. Like I said, outside of faithful Eagles fans, very few people probably remember or care about "4th and 26". I remember it only because I was living in Philly at the time and a big deal was made of it, but it certainly isn't NFL lore. If it had happened on a game-winning drive of a Super Bowl or something you could certainly make a case for it, but a play in a Divisional round game by a team that ended up losing later in the playoffs anyway should not go down in the annals as one of the great plays in NFL history. Since we're discussing "What is lore", I submit that the "4th and 26" play especially does not meet my definition, nor does it appear to meet yours... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.123.223.100 (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last 2 items

I agree that neither of these events are lore. In fact, they were removed when first added, but after removing them three times and having them re-added, I gave up. -- kainaw™ 13:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Pats-Giants regular season game

I definitely think the 2007 New England Patriots-New York Giants game will not only be remembered for the simulcast, broken records, etc., but also the fact that it gave us a preview of one of the greatest Super Bowls ever. Both of the games go hand in hand. It definitely needs to be mentioned on this list. conman33 (. . .talk) 06:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - but in the future when it is lore. Not now. It is a current event. It is not lore. I do not understand why it is so hard to understand that if you want an article on NFL Current Events, start one. Hijacking an article to change the content is not the proper thing to do. -- kainaw™ 12:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Record setters should definitely not be counted as lore, as for any record; it is potentially breakable. KyuuA4 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1971 Dolphins at Chiefs game

I think that the 1971 AFC divisional game between the Dolphins and the Chiefs deserves some mention. It was the longest game in NFL history, and considered one of the greatest divisional playoff games of all time, according to a list conducted by NFL.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve12992 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this entire article last night. Instead of being a list of games, I thought it should be written in essay form. Then, mentioning the longest game would fit well because it would be only one sentence. It would also make it easier to include items of lore that are not events in games. For example, Mean Joe Greene's Coke commercial was not only extremely popular for many years with NFL fans. It was (and still is) popular with people who don't really know anything about him. I thought about what makes events lore. It seems to have to do with having one rather popular expectation and then having that expectation changed. Eli's pass last Sunday is an example of this. The common expectation was a Patriot's victory. In an amazing play, that expectation changed. Still, I'd hold off calling that lore for now. -- kainaw™ 13:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion

It is apparent that the term "lore" does not match the content of this page. I believe that the page should be deleted. A new page titled something like "Interesting NFL games" or "NFL games that made the highlights reel one week" should be created. All in all, it isn't that the content should be removed. The title simply doesn't match the proposed content. Since the editors refuse to discuss the content, the title should be changed. -- kainaw™ 13:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point of view and there's certainly been a lot of discussion about things that are not "Lore" on this page. But for the most part, the 2000s are not really that lore-heavy. We're on track to have about as much lore for this decade as we did for the 1980s. It's not like there's thirty entries for the past five years and four entries for each of the decades preceding. Most people are discussing the content, but maybe what you're waiting for people to agree with you wholesale? Most dictionaries define lore as "traditional knowledge or belief." There is no mention of a time-based requirement. It doesn't make sense to wait a decade to decide if something is lore. At the same time, anything "cool" that happens in a game doesn't become lore either. It's probably suspect to see more than one or two plays a year become lore, and if a year has no plays that become lore, that's fine too.
I would propose that if articles regarding specific team lore are started, this article would probably not be as crowded. I'm an Eagles fan, and even I would argue 4th-and-26 is only a regionally-known phrase. But to argue against Eli's escape and David Tyree's catch as not a great play is a bit ludicrous. An ESPN reader poll[3] (this link will probably work for a few days at most) had a great majority of people calling the Manning-Tyree catch the best Super Bowl play ever. I'm not arguing that it is, but if a lot of people think so, it will certainly become NFL lore.
Finally, I would advise that you look at Wikipedia's deletion policy. It specifically states that "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page" and furthermore strictly says that there should be no renomination: "Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again." The-bus (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
First - It isn't that I feel the content should be deleted. The title simply doesn't fit with the content. The title should be changed. I do not know of a proposal for page move template.
Second - there is no discussion. I repeatedly request a discussion about "what is lore" and the editors will not discuss it. If the page is titled "lore", there should be some discussion about "what is lore". It makes absolutely no sense to me why the editors are so scared of discussing the topic. Perhaps deleting the page is the only way to get them to start talking.
Third - if you look at how many entries for the 2000's that have been deleted after being added over and over and over within days of the event, the 2000's would easily have at least 16 entries per season. Every week, someone insists on adding the "cool clip of the week" as "lore". Sometimes it is more than 1 game per week. There is absolutely no guidelines about "what is lore" so there is no justification for removing the games (or adding them). Why is having a discussion about guidelines so scary that nobody will step in and start talking about it? -- kainaw™ 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with having a very long time-frame is that lore, to a certain extent, is topical. Five years seems too long. I don't think it's up to us to determine that time frame. Just require citations for inclusion: best-of lists, most-important lists, most-historic lists, etc. Citations would have to be from notable sources (ESPN, SI, books about football/the NFL in general, etc). Anything cited through local sources would indicate this is lore to that specific team, not the league as a whole. Maybe once what constitutes lore is hammered out, there can be a template for each NFL team. That way team-specific lore is relegated to those pages. The-bus (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It is my opinion that a time frame is needed to avoid becoming "WikiNews". According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a news service. We have no way to know if an event from last week will be remembered as lore in one or two years. It may. It may not. That hits on notability. Is an event that is considered the best play in NFL history one week and then forgotten a year later lore? Should it be included the week it happened and then hang around for no apparent reason later? I feel that the opinion of many editors is that a time frame is terrible because we live in an "I want it now!" culture. Everything has to be added to the article now. We can't wait even a month to see if it is still in the news. Again, that gets into becoming WikiNews, which is not Wikipedia. I hope I am making it clear that I am not against adding any particular game to the page. I am simply against not having any guidelines of any kind for reference in adding games to the page. -- kainaw™ 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think anything between a month and a year is fine: anything longer than that is probably too long. I would also add that citations are necessary and the game must be important on a national level: that is, something that fans of the sport but not of either team will remember. If it's something team specific, that could go on a (as yet uncreated) team lore page. I think those pages would benefit from some sort of common template, which would be derived from this article. What does everyone else think? The-bus (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with the longer-end of your suggestion: 1 year waiting period. I mention the Hall of Fame's 5-year waiting period to demonstrate that the NFL waits 5 years before deciding if a player is memorable enough to be in the Hall of Fame. Why do we have to decide within 5 minutes of the game being over? I also agree that many events are team-specific. It is very rare that an event happens that the entire NFL fan-base will remember in 10, 20, and 30 years as lore. It isn't even necessarily a game that is remembered. It could be something like the "Super Bowl Shuffle." Yes, I still remember that terrible song (and video). So, all in all, I agree with a waiting period and I also agree with moving team-based lore to team-specific pages. Perhaps they should just merged into the team's history pages since most teams have a history page now. -- kainaw™ 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that a mandatory one-year waiting period is necessary for all games. If it's some regular season MNF game that just happened to have a couple of interesting plays in it, then yes it should wait, but something like David Tyree's catch in the Giants upset of the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII will be the stuff of NFL legend for years. Not only was it a phenomenal play, but it occurred in the most important game of the year, which also featured one of the biggest Super Bowl upsets in NFL history, and also ended the Patriots' record winning streak, etc, etc. There are so many factors combining on this game that I think it's safe to consider it an "instant classic". Therefore I've added it to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.75.35 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Establish "Lore"

Why not use the opening paragraph/introduction to establish "lore"? Naturally, outside sources dictate what "lore" is. It's just a matter of collecting that information here. Afterwards, it'll serve as some sort of "criteria" in determining if an event is lore or not. By sheer name of "lore", there are definite WP:NPOV issues. KyuuA4 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is just a matter of defining lore. I agree that any lore should be described as such in third-party sources. The problem is that I can pick any game, regardless of noteworthiness, and find many resources describing the game within a week or two of the game being played. That is why I've suggested a waiting period for including the game. Perhaps there should be a time period after the game before a news article could be considered a reference for "lore" instead of just a game recap. -- kainaw™ 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It'd be convenient if the NFL itself declare what "lore" is; but I have my doubt there is such a defined term in there. As for using individual games to define "lore", that's circular logic. Oh, and if y'notice here, all sorts of examples were used here before: Talk:National_Football_League_lore#Games_without_common_nicknames. KyuuA4 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I am the guilty one for using the term "lore" in the first place. I added a subsection to the NFL page noting that some events, though very old, are still remembered as lore by NFL fans. I was referring to games such as "The Ice Bowl", "The Heidi Game", and "The Catch." Those are not really unique. There has been cold games, broadcasts cut off early, and amazing game-winning catches since then. However, something about those games has caused them to remain in the collective memory of NFL fans. Immediately, editors started adding all their favorite games to the subsection of the NFL article. So, I split it into a separate page and asked if we could discuss "what is lore?" Then, games without nicknames were added. At one point, games were being added while they were still being played in a race to see which team could have the most games listed. Then, nicknames for players were added. Then, rules with nicknames were added. The article became a catch-all for anything that wasn't notable enough to be in the NFL article. So, I suggest that the article either be renamed or lore be defined. Since I'm the one who initially used "lore," I am happy to change the name of the article to reflect the content. I am no authority over what the page should contain. I just feel it should reflect the title. -- kainaw™ 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We Should Delete This Whole Page

The problem is that no one can agree on what constitutes "lore". It seems pretty obvious to me that "The Helmet Catch", the "Tackle II/Immaculate Redemption/Immaculate Tackle" (all of which it has been sourced as being called and many many other things that aren't on the list are going to be remembered by some segment of NFL fans forever. But not everyone is going to remember them, especially if you don't care about the teams involved (Red Right 88?).

Most NFL fans today don't even know about "The Greatest Game Ever Played" and they certainly wouldn't agree with the title, but there it is. And why is that? Because it rather arbitrarily has a name that has been agreed upon by the likes of John Madden et al?

"Does it have a name that can be "universally" agreed on" is a pretty flimsy standard for establishing what NFL fans do and should remember. The fact is, people remember it. But that's not good enough, some people get their panties in a bind and they have to complain (no one ever came up with a single good reason Roethlisberger's Tackle should not be included other than "it doesn't have a universal name... just three that most people recognize... that's why I kept putting it back up there).

So, if we can't all use common sense and police ourselves, then we should just delete this page all together. Its unfortunate, but clearly there will never be consensus on what should go in and what should and the "name" standard is a joke, so... thems are the breaks.

P.S. As has been suggested, what becomes lore in sports is basically instant these days, because people don't need to talk about it for years and years to see that it was clearly important. People in Seattle see great events that happen in Miami on TV... they don't have to wait for books, film, etc.


(supersoulty (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Other alternatives I've seen. Localized sports lore relative to specific cities, such as Pittsburgh sports lore. Oh, those Steelers fans. Hehe. Also, not that team templates have their own "lores" within their boxes. So, for the lore as far as the NFL is ocncerned, it should be events whose ramifications have had long time effects on the league, such as The Guarantee -- which helped bring about the AFL-NFL merger. One thing I tend to see in agreement -- we have to look at "lore" with long term implications. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: That's just one possible criteria. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that sports lore is instantaneous. It takes time to become lore. No matter how big and amazing an event may seem to be today, it may be forgotten in a year. Will people still be talking about Ben's tackle in 10 years? Did it in any way change the way people viewed the NFL? Will there be a similar game and the announcers will certainly say, "This is just like Ben's tackle"? I seriously doubt it. I expect Eli's pass to become lore because it was a defining moment in which the nearly universal expectation for the Patriots to have a perfect season was suddenly changed. Who knows that people will call it in a few years. They may even refer to the Patriots "Imperfect Season" instead of the pass and helmet catch itself. Lore takes time. Current events are quickly forgotten. What remains after all the flash-in-the-pan stuff is forgotten is lore. I do not see any way to intelligently predetermine what will certainly be remembered and not forgotten by the NFL society as a whole. -- kainaw™ 00:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Instant Replay Game and the Phil Dawson Kick

Why would this game qualify for inclusion in NFL lore? Packers and maybe Bears history, yes, but NFL? Considering this criteria, why wouldn't Phil Dawson's wacky last second field goal against the Ravens in 2007 qualify as lore? It was a game changing play, the Browns tied the game as a result of discussion between officials, who determined that the field goal actually passed through the uprights before bounding back into the field of play. The Browns, because of that play, ended up winning in overtime. It was a game changing kick, play that may even change NFL rules and regulations regarded field goals and instant replay. This is a game that truly needs time to determine the historical significance, but I doubt that it will have an effect on NFL history aside from a minor rule change. My question is: Why would a random game that happened to be decided by a last minute instant replay have a place in NFL lore? The Packers and Bears didn't even make or miss the playoffs that year as a result! If this was such an important game, why isn't it even mentioned in our very own 1989 NFL season article? That in itself somewhat proves my point. A memorable game from that season, to be sure, but does every season not have its memorable games? This is not criteria for inclusion in NFL lore. Vil51J (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Instant Replay did not become part of the NFL's rules until 1999. At the time, Instant Replay was not part of the NFL's rules. On top of that, the game itself was decided based on an Instant Replay call. How many times can you cite prior to 1999 where Instant Replay decided the game's outcome? KyuuA4 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
At the time of the Immaculate Reception, instant replay wasn't part of NFL rules, but it was still unofficially used to determine the validity of the play, so we're not talking about the first ever use of instant replay. The reason that's not usually mentioned in the same sentence is because the play itself was so spectacular. Even after this Packers game, it took 10 years for the NFL to finally institute the rule, so it's not like the NFL, owners, and fans alike woke up, said "whoa, we really need to do something about this", and sprung to action. The game itself clearly wasn't enough to convince the league, owners and coaches to rectify the situation. Strange and unusual? Yes, but not unprecedented. Vil51J (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering this criteria, why wouldn't Phil Dawson's wacky last second field goal against the Ravens in 2007 qualify as lore? Great Plays are too common and happen all the time. "Lore" and "Memorable" are not synonymous, even though they can be connected in some way, shape, or form. KyuuA4 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you're absoloutely correct. While the Bears-Packers game is quite memorable, that same word is not synonymous with "Lore". There are several instances in the NFL and sports history where the rules of the game happened to eventually change fundamentally as a result. It however doesn't necessarily make the game anything more than noteworthy. All things aside, listed below is the phrase "stands the test of time" as part of the criteria for lore, which just about only qualifies itself in maybe Cheeseheads' memories, not football fans in general. Vil51J (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If this was such an important game, why isn't it even mentioned in our very own 1989 NFL season article? Then include it. KyuuA4 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My whole point is, if it's not there, next to nobody cares, and if somebody did, and the game had that much of an impact in "NFL Lore", then someone would probably take the time out to add a simple mention of this particular game. Vil51J (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for Lore

I'm gonna put out some Criteria for Lore. Naturally, the most difficult aspect of this article is maintaining NPOV. See if anyone agrees or disagrees with them:
1. Brings about ramifications to the NFL as a whole. Games inciting Rule Changes are a good example, such as the Tuck Rule Game or the Heidi Game. Even single plays which may or may not have had an effect on an individual team's "dynasty" can count here. The Immaculate Reception comes to mind here.
2. Strange and Unusual. Very rare occurrences in the NFL, whose likelihood for duplication is slim-to-none, such as the Fog Bowl or River City Relay. Record breakers cannot count, as every record is bound to be broken at one point or another.
3. Stands the test of time. Games or events still cited today that have occurred many years ago - probably at least 5-10 years.

If anyone can find "sources" on what the NFL itself considers "lore", that would be great.

NOTE: These are just some ideas I'm throwing out. KyuuA4 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are close on #1 but I'd change it to:
  1. Changes the common view of an aspect of the NFL as a whole. For example, the Tuck Rule Game didn't change the rule. It was already there. The common view was that a quarterback fumbling during a tuck was a fumble. That play changed how people viewed a tuck-fumble (it was well-known to be an incomplete pass after the game) and how people viewed the rule (most people made it clear that they didn't agree with it). There are also events such as The Guarantee. The view before the game was that the AFL couldn't compete with the NFL. After that game, the view changed to the possibility of a periodic fluke in which the AFL could compete. Then the Chiefs came in the next year and solidified the AFL's competitiveness. It can be argued that The Catch changed the common opinion that the Cowboys were the best team ever, closing the dynasty.
As for 2 and 3 - strange and unusual is OK. I'm afraid it will be stretched into "The Sharpie Incident." I strongly agree with the test of time. There are events that happen that I think will become lore. I don't call them lore now. I wait. Personally, I feel 5 years is a good rule and it sort of exists right now as any game within the last 5 years is argued against. They are repeatedly removed, added, removed, added... It would be easier to just say "Wait 5 years." That doesn't mean "It isn't lore." It only means "We wait 5 years here because we want to ensure it is lore." -- kainaw™ 13:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
These are pretty spot-on overall, I think. I would add something like this to #1:
  1. Changes the common view of an aspect of the NFL as a whole. The game or event would be generally remembered by all football fans, not fans of a specific team. For example, 4th and 26 is an example of Eagles lore, not general NFL lore.
I'm not sure if there's more exact phrasing (notability outside of a region?). As far as the time-period rule, I'm against picking an arbitrary number like five years. To me that seems to create unnecessary prohibitions. Make it a non-nominal time period (like one or two years), and then just make sure it follows the rules already in place: cite it. After all, it wasn't that last January Tuck Rule finally became important. Moreover, this doesn't stop anyone from adding insignificant games that happened over five years ago. The-bus (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The exact number of years is not really that important to me. I use 5 years because I refer to the Hall of Fame (which uses 5 years). If it was one year or two years, it makes the discussions short and simple. Most conflict happens within the first couple weeks. By being able to say "We wait X years here before considering adding an event," we make it very easy to rule out those games. Then, after X years it is easy to have a sane discussion about the event. -- kainaw™ 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Picking any number seems like instruction creep to me still but I agree something needs to be done. Why not make it a "guideline" instead of a requirement? Make mention that the NFL generally waits five years before someone can be inducted into the Hall of Fame, and this is something to keep in mind when adding items to this article. But, don't have a minimum time required. Instead, require solid citations (ESPN, SI, NFL.com, etc.) which show this game to be "historic" (not just record-breaking) from a national perspective. Wouldn't that be more error-proof? Under the current rules, the NFL can vote the Manning/Tyree rule the "Top Play of the Past Ten Years" and we wouldn't be able to add it to the article until 2009 (or 2013). That just seems silly. The-Bus (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope my comments have shown that I do understand and agree with the other comments here. Thinking about this, I have two thoughts that I haven't mentioned (because they just came to me). I hope I can make sense of it...
First, my reason for a time limit is not to improve the content of the article. It is simply to quickly deal with new additions. There won't be any for a while. Come next season, there will be a new game (or games) added every week. It is easy to revert with a "wait X years" comment. Being easy doesn't make it right. It just makes it easy. I completely agree that it may be wrong. It is my personal opinion that it does take some time (even a year minimum) for something to move from "That really cool play" to "NFL Lore". I do not believe in "instant lore".
Second, there is a completely new topic of the purpose of this article. Is it important to include the Manning/Tyree play? Is there somebody googling "Manning Typree" and finding that nothing comes up because we didn't add it to Wikipedia? As of now, it is still a current event. It is all over the news. It is ranked #1 in many lists of the top plays in history (where will it be next year?). Now, google for something like "Montana Clark" and you'll find more pages about the Clark River in Montana than the play mentioned on this page. The event has moved from "current events" to "lore". There is a need to file it away in some encyclopedic source - assuming there is a consensus that it is important enough to keep. I haven't seen any debate on that specific entry on the page.
So, I have many reasons to suggest a time limit - but they are not solid arguments. The NFL has a time limit on the Hall of Fame. A time limit makes the removal of current events easy to handle. A time limit forces the page to be more encyclopedic and less current news. I feel that others understand my view on this now. I don't think it was understood before - most likely my fault. So, I'm happy with whatever the consensus is. It could be a strict time limit or a suggested time limit as The-Bus suggests or a no limit free-for-all. -- kainaw™ 17:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are still being a little pedantic with your inclusion of some events and not others. I have no idea how some of those events on the list STILL qualify while others don't. Eitherway, I certainly hope to get no argument from you when, two years from now, I place the Steelers/Colts Playoff Game on here... you oppose it because of "The Tackle" and the terminology around that, but thats only one event in what has been REPEATEDLY described as "one of the wildest finishes in NFL Playoff history." In those exact words. The whole thing from Polamalu's "non-interception" to the missed field goal is the lore... the Tackle is just the one named moment. (supersoulty (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Steelers/Colts Playoff Game on here. Which one? KyuuA4 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm obviously referring to the 2005 Playoff Game. Though the 1995 one was notable. (supersoulty (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
Well, "one of the wildest finishes in NFL Playoff history" -- for Pittsburgh Sports Lore perhaps. Heck, we just managed to witness a rather "wild finish" out of Super Bowl XLII. Games with a "wild finish" are far too common. Based on that, it is not enough to constitute notability as far as Lore is concerned. That is granted the fact that we're discussing what constitutes "Lore" as far as the whole NFL is concerned. KyuuA4 (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


For something like the 20th time, its a phrase that occurs in written form in national press and Pittsburghers didn't make this up, it occurs... exactly worded like that... in both the Super Bowl XL DVD and the America's Game entry for this season... both of which areproduced by NFL Films. on top of that, the NFL Hall of Fame sells a autographed copy of a photo of the event titled "The Tackle". Big Ben's tackle has just become the signature event for the whole last 6 minutes of that game, it is not all that happened. Do you seriously think that everytime someone gets tackled at the goal line as the game ends someone is going to say "Wow... that was just like Super Bowl XXXIV? Of course not, so why hold up that standard for what Big Ben did, and why even go by the "single event with a name" standard which is just ridiculous anyway. There are plenty of games that don't have names, but where very memorable. (supersoulty (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
Here's the thing. "Memorable" and "Lore" do NOT mean the same thing. If you can find a reason other than "memorable", then maybe you have something. KyuuA4 (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of the criteria is that it changed the way people saw the NFL. Before Super Bowl XL, no one thought a team could ever win three playoff games on the road and win the Super Bowl. Now its happened twice. One could argue that it has changed the way people see 5th and 6th seeds. The 5th seed started in the 1978 season... the 6th seed in the 1990... up til that point no team had ever successfully won three road playoff games.(supersoulty (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

That's not significant. As Chris Berman says, "that's why we play the games". Higher seeding never did "guarantee" progression through a playoff bracket, and that concept applies to any sport. The concept of the underdog winning the games had always occured throughout sport.
This idea parallels why "record breaking" performances cannot constitute lore - because it was bound to happen one time or another. Although, we're still waiting on Johnny Unitas' consecutive game TD record to be broken (if it ever will). KyuuA4 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed for many games

I added the Refimprovesect tag to the section about the games because there's no citations as to why those games are included over any others. At the very least, we need to cite some of these. The-Bus (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Another option is to rewrite the section in a narrative form. Explain what the mindset of the NFL (owners/players/fans) was and why the event changed that mindset - becoming lore. For example, it would be better to explain "The Catch" by explaining that the Cowboys were an amazing dynasty that people thought would continue for many years. Then, some team from California with a silly "West Coast Offense" beat them with a rather amazing catch. Suddenly, the Cowboys went downhill and the 49ers continued to excel. That silly offense was copied and used successfully by many other teams. There is no need to make a little section with a title "The Catch" and describe the game itself. -- kainaw™ 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I've often viewed the text following each item as a means to "justify" reasoning for its inclusion in "lore". Naturally, need to stay away from ((WP:OR|original research]]. Plus, the justifications will down-play the fan-based argument - such as "this play/game is the most memorable, yadda yadda". :P KyuuA4 (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And yea. I did try adding citation to some of them. Obviously, I never got around to all of them. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Bowl II

Moved comment to new section -- kainaw™ 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What about one day adding the Giants at packers Ice Bowl II game? I know it is the unoffical name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.209.57 (talk • contribs)

Sure, why not consider it some day. How about 5 years from now. We can consider it and possibly decide to add it or decide that it wasn't much in the way of lore. -- kainaw™ 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The 1999 NFC Championship game should be more lorish than that game. Even that doesn't make the cut. KyuuA4 (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw - I think you are making a good point, but there are exceptional games. This past Super Bowl was plainly one of the best games in history, and will be talked about for the rest of our lives (for a thousand reasons I don't need to repeat). Waiting five years is silly for an encyclopedia - an encyclopedia should have any relevant and succinct information it can. Maybe we should wait five years to include an article on George W. Bush's presidency, to ensure objectivity and clarity and completeness? Also, if your analogy made sense, we could only add, say, 5 articles to wikipedia every year. I don't think that makes much sense at all.

What I'm getting at is I would NOT include Ice Bowl II on there by any means today - that's the kind of game we need to wait on. But this past Super Bowl, you won't find a single football fan who thinks it wasn't a legendary game. -JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.147.61 (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is apparent that this is another person who misunderstands my argument. I'm sorry for not being clear. I do not propose a 5 year waiting period for everything on Wikipedia. I propose a 5-year waiting period for the single article entitled "National Football League lore." If the article was retitled to something like "A list of games that some people think are cool," then I wouldn't see a need for a waiting period. However, I would suggest the page be deleted because it is nothing more than original research. Assuming the article is not retitled, I do not propose banning any mention of the game from Wikipedia. It is found in multiple places. It is found in the Giants articles. It is found in the Packers articles. I believe it is also found in the Super Bowl articles. I merely suggest that it should not be put on this one particular article until it has time to change from "a really cool game" to "lore." -- kainaw™ 15:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Epic games happen so many times -- it isn't even funny. KyuuA4 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument still fails in that there is no cutoff date that makes sense. It's like the old saying, if you give a poor man a penny, he's still poor - okay, so what if I bring 10 trucks full of pennies to a poor man and give him them one by one? According to the original statement, he's still a poor man each time! So you can't just say that one day, something is not lore, and the next day, because of an arbitrary cutoff, it is. I think if this is truly an encyclopedic article, we should delete things like the Saints play that didn't amount to anything, and let those prove their merit over time. There is still room for the "Instant Classic" however - and a legendary, Super Bowl winning play can fall in that category (as diametrically opposed to a regular season play, by a team that didn't make the post season). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.176.19 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that you haven't read the long drawn out arguments on this page and you simply want to rehash what has already been beaten to death. Nobody (including me) is claiming that there is a magical day on which something becomes lore. The issue is a method of dealing with those who want to add "that cool game that I saw last Sunday." When others claim that isn't lore, those editors bring out the "instant classic" argument. My argument is that there is no such thing as an instant classic. That requires knowledge of the future. How can you possibly know that some event will be a classic? I've been told that some events are just so big that everyone knows they will be a classic. Like what? How about assassinating the President? That's rather huge, right? Everyone remembers the President and the assassin - right? It becomes memorable. It becomes lore. Right? OK - quick, off the top of your head, who was assassinated in 1881? Who was the assassin? No, it wasn't Lincoln and Booth. Most people don't know because even something as big as a Presidential assassination isn't an "instant classic" and doesn't become lore. You can bet that every newspaper on July 3, 1881 claimed that the name Guiteau would be remembered forever. Then, a short time later, people simply forgot about it because it didn't turn out to be all that memorable. Are we claiming that a few guys and a ball are more memorable that a Presidential assassination? Somehow, they can create instant classics that we can guarantee beyond a shadow of doubt will be remembered as long as the NFL exists? Of course not. It is just an argument posed so some guy can add "that really cool game that I want to add to Wikipedia really really bad." -- kainaw™ 01:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1881 is more than 120 years behind us. That's three entire Super Bowl eras. I guess when you hear something like FDR giving his "Day that will live in infamy" speech about Pearl Harbor, you feel he was laughably wrong because to say that "required knowledge of the future" which he obviously did not have. Maybe Kainaw, in August 1945, would have said the bomb at Hiroshima was "just another day of the war, let's wait and see if it becomes a historic moment." This is wikipedia so sources are of the utmost importance - well I can cite you articles in the popular press by legendary football writers saying the play is the greatest ever. NUMBER 1! Not a very good play, number one all time! I'd say the number one all time play is probably part of NFL lore, just maybe. And no, claims like these don't arise every year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.146.57 (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just watched "The top 50 catches of all time" on ESPN2 last night. Guess what catch wasn't even in the top 10? Yep - the one that you claim will be legendary, the greatest ever, NUMBER 1. This is what I mean when I say that you can't predict lore in the spur of the moment. It takes time for people to get off the buzz of the event end put it in perspective with previous events. -- kainaw™ 19:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


If that was the Best Damn List, wasn't that made, like, two years ago?

67.186.28.151 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are using the standard of "paradigm shifting events" then the Immaculate Reception obviously doesn't deserve to be up there. Why is the Immaculate Reception considered so famous? Because it was the start of the Steelers dynasty. They went to the Super Bowl, right. WRONG!!! They lost to the Dolphins that year. They wouldn't go to the Super Bowl until two years later... and yet that misconception has clung on, even with Steelers fans. The Steelers don't think the Immaculate Reception was all that significant to the start of the dynasty. As Lynn Swann said, "the Steelers dynasty began... when we beat Oakland in Oakland" (the 1974 AFC Championship Game), when they defeated the Raiders after the "Sea of Hands" (another relatively insignificant event using your standard). The only thing significant about the "Sea of Hands" was that it led to John Madden's ironically saying "The best two teams in the National Football League played today. This was the Super Bowl." Neither of these event actually had any lasting impact on the NFL. They decided nothing. The Raiders didn't go to the Super Bowl, because they were beat by a Steelers team that would have gone regardless of Franco's amazing catch two years earlier (what really turned the Steelers into champs was the 1974 draft). And yet, these are more worthy of "lore" recognition than a play that took place when the whole world was watching? A play that decided the outcome of the championship. And don't even get me started on the inclusion of "The River City Relay" and "Red Right 88" Now, I think all these events should be here, along with "The Helecopter" and Ben Roethlisberger's Tackle, The Greatest Show on Turf and a whole host of other things... but if you wanna be the gatekeeper, then you should be more aggressive in exploring this, and not merely accepting entries because of "common consensus". If all knowledge worked on the basis of common consensus then people really wouldn't know much of anything.

P.S. What about Leon Lett?  :) Or perhaps more to the point, the determination of Don Beebe.

supersoulty (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you did a little more reading and a little less attacking. I have never claimed to be a gatekeeper. In fact, I have argued repeatedly that this entire article should be deleted. It is nothing but POV and Wikipedia's policies forbid POV. So, trying to argue with me that some plays should be deleted is idiotic when I'm arguing that all of them should be deleted. -- kainaw™ 13:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

  • The Ben Dreith Game (December 18, 1976, AFC Divisional Playoff, New England Patriots vs. Oakland Raiders
    One of the most controversial playoff games in history. Officiating was a running controversy with numerous questionable hits including a running mugging of Patriots tight end Russ Francis by Oakland's Phil Villapiano. The decisive moment came in the final minute with the Patriots leading 21-17; Raiders quarterback Ken Stabler threw a desperation heave on third-and-eighteen that was broken up in the endzone, but Raymond Hamilton of the Patriots was flagged by referee Ben Dreith for pass interference, ostenibly for striking Stabler's helmet, though replays showed no interference. The penalty set up a goalline stand and a Raiders rushing touchdown with ten seconds left in a 24-21 Oakland win. The win eventually sent Oakland to Super Bowl XI while the infuriated Patriots would sputter along until getting playoff revenge on the Raiders in the 1985 playoffs and again in the 2001 playoffs. Dreith for his part was so hated in New England that he was not assigned to work another Patriots game until 1987.

Comment: What's notable about that? Games where "questionable" calls regarding referees are common. KyuuA4 (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THIS IS NOT LORE

2006 AFC Championship Game 2007 NFC Championship Game 4th and 26 The Immaculate Tackle (Steelers-Colts) The 1994 MNF Matchup (Montana-Elway) 2003 Wild Card Game (San Francisco-New York) The Freezer Bowl (This is on the current Lore Pag, but it should be deleted if the 2007 NFC Championship Game is not on The list)

Please Leave Me Comments on my List. Thanks.


[edit] The Miss

Just a thought. Gary Anderson becomes the first NFL kicker ever to have a perfect season. Then, in the 1998 NFC Championship Game, he misses an easy field goal that basically allowed the huge underdog Falcons to win, prolonging Minnesota's Super Bowl agony. Debatable, yes, but worth the debate.

supersoulty (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with its inclusion. You had a Minnesota team that, had they won the Super Bowl, would've easily ranked alongside the '72 Dolphins and '85 Bears among the great NFL teams, and they and Atlanta combined for 29 regular season victories, something that doesn't happen very often in NFL history (Super Bowl XIX and the '04 AFC Championship are the only other games that come to mind). The events that occurred during the game certainly warrant consideration.
However, I've never heard of the game of Anderson's kick referred to as "The Miss." If there's an article or articles referring to it as such, fine. But let's not invent a nickname just to include it. "1998 NFC Championship Game" works just fine. --Highway99 (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)