Talk:2007 San Diego Chargers season

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

American Football League (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject American Football League, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.American Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject American Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject American Football LeagueAmerican Football League

California: Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

San Diego Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.San DiegoWikipedia:WikiProject San DiegoTemplate:WikiProject San DiegoSan Diego

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject San Diego To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate San Diego related articles from Category:Unassessed San Diego articles and Category:Unknown-importance San Diego articles with the {{WikiProject San Diego}} project banner.
Cleanup : A cleanup listing for this project is available: clean-up listing for San_Diego
Expand : San Miguel Mountain, Most articles from Category:Stub-Class San Diego articles.
Photo : Request photos that are needed from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Diego County, California to include in each article.
Stubs : Work on articles in Category:San Diego County, California, geography stubs.
Other : * Add {{WikiProject San Diego}} project banner to related articles' talk pages and assess.
- Maintain and further improve articles already of high-quality.
- Get San Diego into Featured article status.
- Improve groups of articles to meet the standards for a Good or Featured Topic.

Training Camp section

This section is rather unnecessary. It contains a lot of POV commentary such as "he offensive line starting unit appears to be set with competition for reserve role" or "Special teams will be the major factor on several players ability to make the roster." Generally, all of this falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is speculation, something that does not fly well on Wikipedia. This is also essentially listing the team's roster and giving commentary - Original research - about it. The section is unneeded and should be eliminated. If roster moves want to be discussed, then that's what the offseason section is for. If the roster wants to be discussed, A) It can't, as that qualifies as speculation and original research and B) The roster itself is already listed, something that's encyclopedic. Pats1 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Offensive line is set with returning vets including Pro Bowl players at OC, and OT and the fact that the Chargers also signed OG Dielman to a big contract and they did not draft any OL. The Bears have a training camp section and their pages are considered to be pretty good." The aspect that the Chargers drafted a wr in the first round and a Safety in the second with the expectations that they would compete for a starting role is not some type of crystal ball forecasting nor is it original research to expect such. In fact every sports writer in America is or will report exactly that. In fact most have at this time.

"Is their any edits I can make that you will not find issue with? I must say at this point I think that you will find issue with any thing I do. I would suggest a different point of view from other editors but you seem to ignore them and we end up with the page being locked down. What can be done to solve this short of you just doing all of the edits and the rest of us never making any contributions? RMANCIL 23:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Um, it's called the talk page. It's exactly what we're doing now. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article or section contains information about a future sporting event or team. It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available. Please be respectful and seek a consensus before deciding on a complete deletion. Remember we all have a interest in a great project and we all have a voice.

You're missing the point of that tag. That tag is used to show that the article's content, because it contains information regarding a future event, isn't finalized yet - that it could be changed (i.e. speculative). This tag essentially informs the reader that there's probably going to be things that change between now and when the event takes places/comes to completion. However, this tag doesn't give license to make edits that violate WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. You see, the edits you made are completely your opinion, until you can provide some type of source (which would be sketchy anyway, as it would likely be just some prognosticator, shooting blindly at what could happen this season). I'll break down your edits line-by-line:

"The Chargers will open training camp with 21 of 22 starters returning including 11 Pro Bowlers." - This information is/can be/should contained within the opening paragraph or, more advisably, the offseason content.

Most of this information was in fact included in the opening off season information and you edited it out stating that it was inappropriate. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Which precludes it from both (and all) sections. Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"QB Phillip Rivers will return after taking over for Drew Brees in 2006 and helping the offense score a NFL-high 30.8 points a game." - This has nothing to do with 2007. This information is entirely about the 2006 season. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information is relevant to TC as it indicates that the QB position is settled after the 2006 season where it was not prior to that season. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The starting RB position is set with league M.V.P. LaDainian Tomlinson and lead reserve Michael Turner to return." - When you use the word "set," that violates WP:NPOV. Even "lead reserve" is a POV statement. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaDainian Tomlinson is the starting RB for the Chargers and will be despite not playing in a single preseason game which has been and will continue to be the trend for the M.V.P. player. The Chargers did not draft any RB and several reverences indicate that is and has been the Chargers position on Tomlinson as well as Turner. It is not a pov but a statement based on past history and expected performance. While there is some slight chance that may change it is as much of a certainty as the league schedule which is posted on every teams page. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you said really addressed my point. "Set" is a POV term, no matter how you slice it. Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The primary competition appears to be heading into training camp on offense to be at WR where number 1 draft pick WR Craig Davis must work his way up the depth chart while competing with hold overs Vincent Jackson , Eric Parker and Malcom Floyd." - Says who? "The primary competition appears to be" -- to you? to who? Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Players are drafted to compete for starting positions, the history of the N.F.L. draft clearly indicates that teams expect high draft choices to compete for starting roles. Players who have started or played and produced significantly which can be verified by not only team depth charts but by player stats will and have faced past competition for their spots on the roster this is as old as the game itself. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is entirely your research, or even if its someone else's or popular opinion, there is nothing on Earth you can do to make that apply here. Again, it's simply unverifiable information. It's never as clear-cut as "working his way up on the depth chart." You can't refer to a depth chart in an encyclopedic article. Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The offensive line starting unit returns and looks to be set with competition for reserve roles." - "Looks to be set" is a blatant POV term. This is simply your commentary on the situation. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a team returns all of it starters from a 14-2 team and drafts zero OL it is a very accurate statement that the team appears to be set. It is impossible to rule out injuries during training camp or in preseason games however. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's again your personal opinion. It's POV no matter how you slice it. Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"On defense the primary competition will take place at CB where 2006 1 st round selection Antonio Cromartie will try and unseat veteran Drayton Florence." - And how can it be verified that the primary competition will take place there? Even writers can't verify this. Even the team can't verify this. "Competition" is VERY subjective and unencyclopedic - it changes from person to person. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire training camp is a competition between players to not only make the roster but to determine who will start. When a N.F.L. team invest the money on a 1 st round selection they do so with the full plan on creating competition for a particular position with the idea of upgrading the play at the position. The entire focus of training camp is to establish starting players as well as conditioning along with roster depth. Every year teams cut players from their roster in fact more players are invited to camp than the team has roster slots for. In some cases the players have very little chance at making the roster much less a chance to start however high draft selections in most cases are given every opportunity to justify their selection by the team. Ignoring this aspect of training camp is outlandish and realy makes me question why you think we have any information on the teams or the players at all. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information that is contained on player pages on Wikipedic is all encyclopedic - i.e. facts. You can prove that Florence was born on 12/19/1980, attended Tuskegee and had 3 interceptions last year. These are all verifiable facts. But depth chart competition with other players isn't at any point in time verifiable. This is not a debatable point. It's policy. Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Safety Eric Weddle who the Chargers traded several draft picks for will compete with Clinton Hart and Bhawoh Jue for playing time Opposite Marlon McCree." - How you do know this is happening? This simply isn't verifiable or relevant. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above, it is happening as sure as the Sun comes up tomorrow and yes it is my POV that it will however it won't for a lot of folks all over the world but based on that you could make you same POV case. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just admitted it violates WP:NPOV. What more should I say? Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Donnie Edwards starting ILB will have to be replaced , based on the current depth chart and last seasons training camp under study Matt Wilhelm has the inside track for the starting role however the Chargers did draft Anthony Waters along with Brandon Siler who could challenge for playing time." - "Will have to be replaced" says who? "Based on the current depth chart and last seasons training camp study" is simply your original research. It cannot be verified, even by listing a current depth chart. Keep in mind depth chart templates were removed from Wikipedia because of serious verification problems, so by extension, you can't cite a depth chart as a source. They are constantly changing, and some teams probably don't even keep an actual linear depth chart. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Edwards is on the K.C. Chiefs team as of today so it is a fact that his role as starting ILB for the S.D. Chargers will be fielded by a different player in 2007. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is as far as you should go. But contributing original research by speculating that Wilhelm is on the "inside track" violates Wikipedia policy. The only thing you can do here is say Edwards was the starting ILB and is gone - a fact that has already been addressed in the offseason section. Lawrence Taylor could start at ILB for the Chargers as far as we know. Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition returning ILB Tim Dobbins should see more action after a solid 2006 season in reserve. Stephen Cooper who started several games at the strong side or run side ILB position is expected to start full time in 2007." - "Should see more action" is simply your opinion. "Solid" is clearly POV. "Expected to start full time" is again your opinion. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching reports along with GM Smith mention Dobbins 2006 campaign and the teams high expectations. The fact that Donnie Edwards and Randell Godfrey are no longer with the Chargers both of whom started in the season opener in 2006 and saw a great deal of plays from scrimmage. Godfrey was replaced by Cooper as starter for several games and saw a great deal of action in 2006. Cooper is listed as the starter by the team and at this point it is his job to lose. The basic absence from the team of Edwards and Godfrey mandates that players who were reserve players will move up the depth chart and will see more play as a result. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed as a starter on the team's unofficial online depth chart proves nothing. Even if it was official, there's no way to verify it, as it could change at any moment. Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Special teams will be the major factor on several players ability to make the roster , Darren Sproles RB/KR who missed the 2006 campaign will be in a battle to make the roster." - "Be the major factor" says who?!? Sproles will be a battle says who? Even the Chargers don't know this. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ST have been and always will be the roles for several players who hope to make a N.F.L. roster. The Chargers have two extremely talented RB in front of Sproles , Tomlinson won M.V.P. for the entire league and the Chargers turned down several trade offers preferring to keep Turner who based on stats was the primary back up for Tomlinson last season. Sproles must make a impression as a kick return player or he may get cut from the roster. Their are a limited number of roster slots teams can and do cut players. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, says who? That first sentence is so POV it's not even funny. Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Chargers agreed to contract terms with five draft picks , WR Craig Davis , Anthony Waters ,Paul Oliver , Legedu Naanee and Brandon Siler on July 23 2007." - This is semi-irrelevant information that belongs in the offseason section. But listing the dates of every signing and release can get excessive. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young players must be signed in order to participate in training camp .New players must also learn the teams playbooks and early signings allow the players a better chance in getting a solid start and a chance at making a major contribution instead of being a disappointment. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your original research. Again, anything besides the facts - that RookieX signed a contract on Day X - is usually unverifiable, POV commentary. Just stick to the facts, and you'll always be encyclopedic. Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"7/28/2007 marks the opening of training camp and it runs through August 22. Camp is held at Charger Park 4020 Murphy Canyon Rd San Diego C.A. 92123. 8/4/2007 10am Fan Fest will be held at Qualcomm Stadium 9449 Friars Rd San Diego, CA 92108. All events are free and open to the public." - This may be the only "good" section of this section. But the date that training camp is held hardly deserves its own section, that's what you haven't seen it in any other team season article to date. This isn't the Chargers' website - we don't need the address of Qualcomm Stadium. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section is about Training camp when it is is very much a part of the story along with where it is. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that, but rather listing an address isn't what Wikipedia is for. This also looks like advertising, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point? All of this would make a decent messageboard post or fansite article, but none of it is encyclopedic. It is simply commentary about the Chargers' roster, which, by the way, is already listed. The actual roster is encyclopedic as a stand-alone. But once you start delving into commentary about it, you immediately violate WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. This is not my opinion. These are simply the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Pats1 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that you simply are attacking me over and over , I have looked at several team boards and they have sections detailing the teams practices and player movements along with TC notes. I think that rather than follow me around and attack every edit you should start a dialog on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League and perhaps post links on all of the team talk pages and see if you can form a consensus as to just what should and should not be where. At this point it does look like you are more involved in trying to create a issue with me than helping with the over all project. I hope you prove me wrong. RMANCIL 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the "I'm the victim" crap. I monitor 500+ NFL-related articles on Wikipedia. I look at every diff for every edit every day. If I see something that violates guidelines or policies, I'll take some sort of action. And I took the time on here to list out, word-by-word, everything that's wrong with the latest edit(s). This talk page is for this specific article. You tell me to have discussions about every edit I make, but then you tell me not to use the talk page for the article. I'm sorry, but you're all over the place here. Pats1 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases I think it is your pov that their is a problem and if you have to much to keep track of, cut back if it interferes with forming a dialog and a consensus.RMANCIL 19:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How has my POV come into this at all? Am I adding sentences about LT crying or Merriman's roids? No. Pats1 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to thank you for having a dialog rather than a edit war. RMANCIL 03:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat1 are you sure you don't want a link? "both players were in the starting line up in 2006". Why should I have a ref on every thing else but not that? RMANCIL 23:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that you state how many games they started in, and then yes, add those two gamelogs at the end of the sentence. Just saying "they were in the starting lineup" is a bit ambiguous, because it could mean they were in it for 1 game or 16 games. Pats1 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it RMANCIL 03:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The first sentence is nearly unintelligible. Anyone want to take a crack at fixing it? I would, but so many of my brain cells died while I was reading it that I'll have to take a break for a while. Here it is in its current form: "The 2007 San Diego Chargers season began with the team trying to improve on their 2006 season, not with an improved regular season record (as they went 14-2), but with a improved post-season (0-1)." Thanks. Holy 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I understand the sentence, but no one who doesn't know about the 2006 Chargers season would think this was actual English. Haha. --Ted87 09:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire

lese add somthing about the Fire.The Tramp 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AFC Wild Card Playoff (Sunday January 6, 2008): vs. Tennessee Titans (weather)

The article states the gametime temperature was 39 degrees, that cannot possibly be correct for San Diego. Where is the weather information coming from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.86.202 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where the weather info came from, but you're right, the low that day was 50 degrees. I removed the information. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]