Template talk:NFL starting quarterbacks navbox

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

National Football League This template 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

This template (NFL Position Templates) was considered for deletion on 2009 May 5. The result of the discussion was "keep (no consensus)".

This page needs to be updated with someone with more knowledge than me. It's incredibly out of date. Heldlightning (Talk) 16:40, 03 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion that I think we should implement to make it clearer what this template is showing, and also may help with people trying to switch the QBs mid week. What if we change the wording on the template from "Current starting quarterbacks" to "Most recent starting quaterbacks"...i think this works because it's (arguably) a little clearer that we're talking about the most recent QB to start a game for his team...also, i think we need to do away with the "as of week xx" thing...the problem here is that it gets switched on Sunday (or in this case on Thursday)...i know it's a technicality, but at that point half of the QBs fall under Crystal Ball because they haven't actually started a game for their team yet that week. I'm proposing that we switch it to "Most recent starting quarterbacks", and change "As of week xx" to "Updated MM/DD/YY"...i'll try it out on the template and if people disagree, it can always be changed back Bjewiki (Talk) 04:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it. I think it sounds very...unofficial, for lack of a better word.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you both. The template does need to be tweaked in an attempt to deter WP:CRYSTAL-violating edits, but the proposed change does sound pretty awkward and, as Chrisjnelson put it, "unofficial." How about something like... hmmm... well, we'll have to think about it. Skudrafan1 (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'm open to other suggestions, but I think something has to change. To be honest, since Thursday the the template is kind of WP:Crystal. I mean right now it says (as of week 12), when in fact only 3 games have been played in week 12, so the rest are all predictions. Bjewiki (Talk) 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious fix-it, to me at least, would be to place a disclaimer on the template saying not to edit the template at all until all the games have been played for a given week. We would be policing that all day Sunday, every Sunday though. Skudrafan1 (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would technically be after all of the current week games have started...so, really not until Monday night....but you're right that it would def. get edited during Sunday... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjewiki (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah really, by that logic, the Monday night teams are "predictions" if we update it Sunday. But I don't consider that a big deal.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed new title, solves nothing in my opinion. Why? Because the uninformed editors that make incorrect changes to the template (usually IP editors) don't look at the top of the template anyway. If they did, they'd notice it was "through the previous week." "Through Week 11" and "through November XX" are no different in this regard - they'll just edit the template, maybe changing the date or maybe not. Changing the wording at the top will not a stop an IP editor from added an announced starter to the template, because they aren't looking at that in the first place. Quite simply, I don't think there is a really effective solution to this. I think the original wording was best and is as good as any, and all we have to do is monitor it. I'm willing to do that, and there are at least a few others. It's no big deal.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this template is only relevant during the football season, can we get a bot to automatically remove this template from pages during the offseason and replace it at the beginning of the regular season? And also with the corresponding kicker, punter, and long snapper templates, and the MLB player templates. --Nat682 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a quarterback is injured, or has a concussion and is not passing the concussion protocol, or placed on injured reserve for the season, it makes no sense to continue to show him as the starting QB. If the backup has been announced as the starter for the next game, it is showing bad information to leave the injured player listed. As an example, Blane Gabbert was placed on IR today. Henne has been announced as the next starter. It is leaving bad information on the site if Henne is not listed till after the game starts. Spparky (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a head coach or the team in general announces a new starter, shouldn't this be enough to change it before they officially start? I understand the hesitation to change quarterbacks based on rumors or tentative injuries, but when the head coach/team announce a change at quarterback (like the Redskins with Colt McCoy and Jets with Michael Vick a week before they officially started), this should be enough to update this template, no? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Vick situation but as far as the McCoy situation there was still question as to RGIII returning. If there is any chance a player does not start, they should not be anointed the started here. Dabullzrule (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, but that situation was odd because it was also incorrect to list Cousins as the starter. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To address an unusual situation that this template hasn't encountered before. All quarterbacks on the Denver roster were ruled ineligible prior to the 2020 Week 12 game due to COVID-19 protocols, leaving the team "without a quarterback," according to the media. Going by official NFL records and documents, it would be incorrect to list Philip Lindsay as the starting QB for their Week 12 game against the Saints since he is not listed as a QB and the first play was run out of the wildcat formation[1]. Kendall Hinton was the Broncos' primary passer in the game, and was listed as a QB, but he didn't take the field as QB until the game's fifth play; he was a quarterback, but not technically the starting quarterback. Even the Broncos didn't say Hinton was their starting QB, only that he was taking over passing duties on an emergency basis.[2] This seems like nit-picking, but if we're trying to be as accurate as possible, in both technical and colloquial terms, the correct thing to say is that the Broncos currently have no starting QB. Hopefully this will only be an issue for another few days or a week; if the Broncos announce a starter by 12/6, or if Hinton takes the first snap of the Week 13 game, this should be changed accordingly. Rowsdower45 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rowsdower45: A quarterback is a player who takes a snap from center at the start of a play. In the wildcat formation, a non-QB lines up at the QB position. But they still took a snap from the QB position, and that's the part that matters here. It doesn't matter what the listed roster position is, see this tweet from Ed Werder stating "Phillip Lindsay took the 1st snap for the #Broncos at quarterback Sunday. He will be listed as the starting QB for the game, per @ESPNStatsInfo". Hinton was clearly not the starting quarterback for the game since he didn't start the game. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles247, in cases like this (Matt Cassel got credited for a "start" by taking an opening wildcat snap in a game with the Bills a few years back), I also think we should just go with what the majority of sources say vs any sort of technicality. NFL.com doesn't differentiate starts vs games played anymore, making the distinction even less important. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissident93: Pro-football-reference lists Cassel as the starting QB for that game as well. There are a lot of sources from before the game started that indicated Hinton would likely be the starting QB for the game, but most sources now do not call him the "starting quarterback" once the game was actually played. Seems pretty clear to me that Hinton should not be listed as the starting quarterback for the Broncos in this template or at Template:Denver Broncos starting quarterback navbox, but it should be discussed whether to list Lindsay on the templates. I'd go with "no starting QB" for this game per the official NFL gamebook listing him as a running back in the starting lineup. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles247, I'd honestly rather go with vacant/none than list Lindsey as the starter just because he took a single snap that just happened to be the first one on their drive. Listing NFL "starts" in general feel vestigial in nature that originated from an era when they took a lot of inspiration from baseball/MLB. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: In response to this edit summary, none of those sources say he started the game. "G" typically stands for "games played" while "GS" is "games started". Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: Actually, that was my mistake. I read the source incorrectly. Sorry! I'm still somewhat new to this part of Wikipedia.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]