Talk:Dual-threat quarterback

Image in lead paragraph

So, for the (I believe) 3rd time now, KHLRookie has reverted the image in the lead paragraph to this image of John Elway, with the caption, John Elway was the most successful-dual threat QB, appearing in 5 Super Bowls and holds the record of most rushing TDs by any quarterback in the finals. Although I originally favored this image of Michael Vick, I believe an image of Andy Dalton at TCU is the better option over the Elway image (and the Vick image). The caption I provided for the Dalton image is Quarterback Andy Dalton pictured running during a game

My reasoning behind why the Dalton image is more relevant for the lead article than the Elway image/caption:

• It visualizes the article better, because in the Dalton image it is showing a quarterback actually displaying the dual-threat of running, on top of their already expected threat of passing. The Elway image does not, and it is of a lower resolution quality.
• The caption is more neutral and more straightforward. The Elway caption is clearly biased and is misleading. It's misleading because it states Elway was the most successful-dual threat QB. But that is clearly debatable. Sure, in terms of postseason success, he was more successful than Michael Vick (1st in rushing yards for a QB) or Steve Young (1st in rushing TDs for QB), but obviously from a statistical standpoint, Vick and Young have better rushing stats. Additionally, Elway ranks 7th in rushing yards for QB, and if Cam Newton scores 1 more rushing TD, Elway would be outside of the top 10 in the rushing TDs category.
• The Elway caption tries to display Elway as some sort of poster boy of the dual-threat QB, where as the Dalton caption is a neutral, straightforward "here's a QB being a dual-threat by running" type of deal.

Due to the consistent reverting of the Vick image and later the more compromising Dalton image, I suggest we have an official vote on which image should be the lead image of this article. While it would be more relevant to choose between Dalton or Elway, I don't see why we can't include other images in this vote. Soulbust (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I vote Dalton per above Soulbust (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I vote Dalton per above, anything but the Elway one, I mean the editor is obviously being biased, cmon man lol very few people think of Elway when they think of a dual-threat qb. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Dalton isn't considered a dual threat, like Vick, Luck, Elway and the others. He's a short yardage TD hawk. Also not every picture has to be a b scrambling KHLrookie (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

True that Dalton isn't considered a dual-threat. However, Elway is not the poster boy for dual-threat QBs like how your caption is portraying him. And also, would you not agree that the first image a reader sees on this article should be of a QB running? Seeing how it is, in fact, an article based around dual-threat (or running) QBs? The Dalton image is neutral in that, yes he isn't a dual-threat QB, but the image itself is displaying what a dual-threat QB can do: which is run with the ball aside from just throwing it. Soulbust (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

DUAL threat = passing AND running. Elway was the most successful balancing the 2. Put on an elway running a ball image or leave it. we have enough running qb pics as it is. running isn't the only thing dual threat qbs do. KHLrookie (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A standard QB passes. A dual-threat passes and runs. Therefore, running is more associated with dual-threats than just simply passing. Either way, the current image of Elway doesn't feature him passing nor running. Also, in regards to Elway being the most successful balancing of passing and running, well, that's an opinion. There is no credible source presented or known of that states that he is. Statistics could provide an argument for Steve Young or Aaron Rodgers over Elway. Regardless, that's an opinion, and on Wikipedia, we have to be objective. So the Dalton image works fine. Soulbust (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Dual-threat quarterback. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.13thman.com/cflvsnfl.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2190906-bo-levi-mitchell-shows-that-cfl-quarterbacks-are-not-wimps
• Attempted to fix sourcing for https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/cfl-55-yard-line/backup-quarterback-drew-tate-plays-major-role-in-limited-time-in-stampeders--grey-cup-win-045955279.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cfl.ca/statistics/league/stat/Rushing/year/2014/type/reg
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cfl.ca/page/stats_indrec_rushing
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cfl.ca/uploads/assets/CFL/09/CFL_Individual_Records_2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

List of "current NFL dual-threat QBs" in introduction

I think we should have a better definition of which NFL quarterbacks should be mentioned as "current NFL quarterbacks considered to be dual-threat", as it has been up to debate. Too often, I've seen QBs such as Colin Kaepernick, Andy Dalton, Tyrod Taylor, Aaron Rodgers, and Andrew Luck get listed and removed repeatedly from the list, often to heated arguments and confrontations.

My understanding of this list is current or recent NFL starters who meet the criteria of a "dual-threat" quarterback and is active in the league. I believe the second paragraph mentions that they typically rush for over 300 yards per season. Hence, why I see Kaepernick (free agent) and Dalton (rushes for less than 300 yards per year on average) not making it on the list. We shouldn't let personal bias for or against a player add or remove them from the list.

I propose these conditions for a quarterback being this list:

• Must be an active player or starter for an NFL team
• Must rush for 300 or more yards per year on average for a 16-game season (or around 20 yards per game)
• Must have decent passing statistics to go along with his rushing statistics (average over 2000 yards per year over 16 game season, for example)
• Must have credible sources that describe him as a "dual-threat" quarterback

Or we could simply use these conditions:

• Must be an active NFL starter or player
• Must "have the ability to beat an opponent through passing or rushing"
• Must have credible sources that back up the quarterback in question fitting the above description

What do you guys think? —WuTang94(user talk) 19:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Mahomes/Lamar image

@Gonzo fan2007: and @BubbaDaAmogus: Lamar image serves better (imo) in the section about the late 2010s, as Lamar is definitely considered one of if not the best dual-threat of that era. And in particular, the Mahomes images (seen in this revision) serve as good example images of a pass vs. a rush from the same QB. And they worked really well being from the same game, but the biggest factor in me placing those images was how high-quality the actual images are. The Lamar rushing image, for example, has some blurring, that the Mahomes images simply don't have. For this I'm strongly considering re-implementing them as the lede images. Again, the Lamar rush one also works really well later on in the body of the article. I currently have this article nominated for GA status though, so I'll probably just wait to see what the GA reviewer says.

Bubba, I am unsure of your logic calling Mahomes "one of the best of this time" and "a slightly above average QB" in the same comment, but the Mahomes image you replaced with the Josh Allen image was not placed there because anyone was "glazing" Mahomes. Would implore you to assume good faith, because in truth it just seems Gonzo switched out the Lamar image that was formerly used in the late 2010s section (now used in the lede) for the Mahomes image you replaced (see link to previous revision above).

This sort of arguing over which QB is better or whatever is exactly why I for a long time was cool with a Navy QB rushing being the lede image (see this revision). But after noticing the high-quality images of Mahomes vs. Washington, I placed those images in the lede last February. Soulbust (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the "quickly emerged as an effective dual-threat quarterback when he began playing in the late 2010s." caption was just something I originally included as the caption to the Lamar rush image that Gonzo kept just replacing Lamar's name with Mahomes' in the caption, as you did when replacing Mahomes' with Josh Allen's. Soulbust (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have a strong feeling either way. From a historic or modern perspective though, I just don't view Mahomes as a great example of a dual threat QB. He is kind of like Aaron Rodgers in the first 10 years of his career: elusive, able to scramble, but almost no designed runs other than a surprise to throw the defense off guard. Lamar is the shining example of a dual threat QB, one who can run or pass effectively from play to play. Considering he is going to (likely) have the QB rushing record next season, while also passing so effectively, it just made sense to highlight him over a more protypical pocket passer like Mahomes. As a reader, I was truly surprised to see Mahomes at the top of the page highlighted as the best example of a dual threat QB, regardless of photi quality. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes when I originally switched out the Navy QB for images of Mahomes, I was hoping there were higher-quality images of Lamar available because I agree, he is probably the most A1 example of a dual-threat. No real strong feeling from me either way, though I still felt it wouldn't hurt to make my thought process clear. Soulbust (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dual-threat quarterback/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Soulbust (talk · contribs) 23:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kimikel (talk · contribs)
Hello, I'm going to be doing this review as part of the July GA backlog drive. It should take me no longer than a week. Kimikel (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Soulbust: Below is the first half of my review. I'm going to go through the sources tomorrow. If you think you can address all of these issues within the next 7 days or so let me know; if not, I'll close the review, and you can leave a message on my talk page whenever they are finished, and I promise I'll do a second review. Regardless, just let me know what you think, or if you have any questions - Kimikel (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Also just let me know if you need more time. Kimikel (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

    @Soulbust It's been a while since any changes have been made on the article, is it ready for review? Kimikel (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

    I am unsure. I think I'd like to add more, but in the meantime I did add information relating to dual-threats in college and the CFL. Because of this, I think the Criticism of term's racial connotation section shouldn't be rolled into the History in the NFL section, because it also relates to college football history, since college prospects get tagged as dual-threats during recruiting.

    But yeah let me know if the new college and CFL info is suffice, or if you think there should be more added. I think it'd probably be easier to find/add more info about college dual-threats. Soulbust (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

    @Soulbust Sorry for the delay in response. Looked over what you had briefly, and it looks good. I would say a little bit of history throughout the 20th century for college dual threats would be nice; if you can add that I'll review it more thoroughly and then that should be it. Thank you for the work you've done so far! Kimikel (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

    @Soulbust Hello, how's it going? It has been two weeks since an edit; the article still doesn't cover dual-threat qbs in the NCAA before 2000, which is an issue in broadness, especially since the lede suggests that they "have historically been more prolific at the college level" and that it was adopted in the nfl later on. Since this review is now about a month and a half old, I'm considering closing this as a fail to allow you the chance to add all of that whenever you get around to it and resubmit it, and I can give it a re-review then. If you object to that please let me know, but otherwise, if no work is done in the very near future, i'll probably end up doing so. Just let me know what you think, thank you. Kimikel (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Kimikel: I'll look for information on the pre-2000 NCAA dual-threats in the next day. I'll see if that information can help justify the lede, and if it doesn't, I'll rework the lede to better reflect the body. Thank you.

    Soulbust (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Kimikel I've tweaked the lede and added information + sources to the college football section. I believe the article should be good for the GA criteria now but let me know if there are any more loose ends. And thank you for all your help with the GA process. Soulbust (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Soulbust I'm very sorry but I've been busy preparing to fly overseas the last couple days and I fly out today. If you don't mind waiting I'll be back in a couple weeks and will finish the review ASAP, if not I wouldn't mind if you found another reviewer during that time to close it out. Thank you for your work and I'm sure whether by me or by someone else it will be approved soon. Kimikel (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Kimikel: All good. I don't mind waiting a couple more weeks. I'll see if there are any additions or tweaks I can make in the meantime. Thanks again for your help with the review and safe travels, Soulbust (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Soulbust: Thank you for your patience. A few more small things before I approve it for GA (I know, I'm sorry):

1. "As a result, quarterbacks became distinct passers of the football, whereas halfbacks would absorb much of the run play responsibilities on a team." needs citation
2. "Limited by injuries during the middle part of his career, Grogan would transition to a more traditional pocket-passer-by the mid-1980s." needs citation

Well-written

Lead section

• The main issue with the lead section is that it contains a lot of information that is not cited or mentioned anywhere else in the article. Almost the entire second paragraph of the lead is completely unrelated to anything else in the article, as the article pretty much only talks about NFL QBs and not college QBs. You ought to go through and either remove everything from the lead that isn't in the actual article or add all of them into the article itself.

Over the next few days, I will see what I find (or if I can find) information regarding Dual-threats in college and in the CFL. If I can't find anything perhaps we should maybe rename this article as "Dual-threat quarterbacks in the NFL" and have Dual-threat quarterback be a more broad article akin to Game manager or System quarterback, or perhaps as a redirect to Quarterback#Dual-threat quarterbacks. Though, given the topic I think I will be able to find information regarding dual-threats in college/the CFL. Soulbust (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Pre-modern era

• "as such the" > as such, the
• "if not more likely"> if not more, likely
• "However, they would" > They would
• "as coaches adopted new strategies to take advantage of players with unique physical attributes and skills — all in the name of trying to gain an edge on their opponents." > I feel as though this quote is not necessary and this info could be summarized.

 Done the first 4 bullets have been addressed. I tweaked the quote to be more summarizing in nature. Soulbust (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "As a result, quarterbacks..." > needs citation

Early history

• "The next decade, however," > The next decade
• "Tarkenton adds by describing the reaction to his scrambling at the time, "It was not a skill set that was embraced. Plenty of people mocked it, and the rest wrote it off."" > Tarkenton described scrambling as "not a skill set that was embraced. Plenty of people mocked it, and the rest wrote it off.
• "—in which he became the first quarterback to pass for over 2,000 yards and rush for over 500 yards in the same season—"> replace dashes with commas
• "as he logged" > logging
• "wild schemes, before" > unusual schemes for him before
• "leading to his" > which led to his
• "539 yards, on a team" > 539 yards
• "which was held" > which stood

 Done Except for 539 yards bullet. the ", on a team" section is necessary here since it is referring to how the Patriots team itself also set a record. Unless you would suggest for that to be removed. Soulbust (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Soulbust My mistake, for that one I just meant to remove the comma so it read "539 yards on a team", sorry Kimikel (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah gotcha. Fixed that one now then. Soulbust (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Increased frequency

• "writes that, although," > wrote that although
• "by a QB but make no mistake about it, if you are" > by a QB...if you are
• "adding that, Young," > adding that Young
• "writes, "True, Steve Young" > wrote that "Steve Young
• "in which Griffin III would" > who would
• " plays -- not" plays—not
• "Kordell Stewart," > remove comma
• "5 Super Bowls" > five Super Bowls

 Done Though I tweaked the CraveOnline quote about Young beyond your suggestions. I think it has a bit of a better flow this way, but let me know. Soulbust (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Michael Vick effect

• "John Elway" > Elway
• "McNabb became joined" > McNabb joined
• "as Ray Buchanan stated" > with Ray Buchanan stating
• mobile right now," > mobile right now";
• "Michael Vick, and in addition to that, McNabb also mentored Vick" Michael Vick; he also mentored Vick
• "Vick also served" > Vick served
• "by Atlanta Falcons" > by the Atlanta Falcons

 Done and I did some extra tweaking to McNabb's quote/response to Buchanan. Also did tweaking on his connection to Vick Soulbust (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Newfound implementations

• "labeled, "symbolic" > labeled "symbolic
• "This status came" > This came

 Done Soulbust (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Introduction of RPO

• "have continued to rise" > continued to rise
• combine last two paragraphs, as they're both pretty small by themselves.

 Done Soulbust (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

• See Wikipedia:Criticism, I think this section should be rolled into the previous one, with a header like "Racial connotation"
• "quarterbacks while still" > quarterbacks, while still
  •  Done Soulbust (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Broad

• This article is very NFL-centric and doesn't really make any reference to dual threat QBs at the college level, or in the CFL.

Neutral

• No issues with neutrality

Images

• Images fine

Stable

• Stable

Verifiable: Source spotcheck

1. 22: Verified for the Ravens record. However, none of the Grogan career stuff is mentioned in here, so all of the facts about Grogan are unsourced. New source should be introduced here that corroborates the facts about Grogan.
2. 30: Verified
3. 58: Verified
4. 70: Verified
5. 84: Verified

• 2, 25, 73 missing author

 Done Fixed missing authors Soulbust (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Status query

Kimikel, Soulbust, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, the last ping of Soulbust just above the "Well-Written" section on October 2 wouldn't have gone through because the post didn't have a sig (pings only work if a valid sig is included in the comment); I hope this gets the review moving again. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi I didn't see those comments previously. I will try to look for sources for those sentences within the next week, if not couple of days. Soulbust (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Soulbust: any update? Kimikel (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Soulbust: this needs to be fixed if the article is to pass. i'd like to keep this review from taking more than 3 months. Kimikel (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Closing this review due to inactivity. I pointed out the lack of citations on those sentences about a month ago, and there has been no meaningful edit on the page since then. Kimikel (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Referencing GA loose ends

@Kimikel: Hi, due to offline considerations, I wasn't able to edit too much, at least not as in-depth as I would have liked to over the past week and a half or so. And so, I wasn't able to address the sentences that needed referencing prior to right now. I just added more information + referencing to the article and believe that it would be ready for GA status pending any further notes you may have. Soulbust (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Soulbust: I understand completely, I just didn't want to let that review linger for three months with no updates for about three weeks. When you are ready to renominate, I'll start the review and we can finish it off. Kimikel (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)