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, 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, I believe 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 one external links on Dual-threat quarterback. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add 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 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 ).

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)

Mahomes/Lamar image
and 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)