Jump to content

Talk:Michael Vick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 137.111.47.29 (talk) at 05:53, 2 September 2009 (Jamie Foxx's defense of Vick). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


STICKY NOTE PLEASE

Portions of previous Talk have been archived, but are available for review.

Staying accurate and NPOV on this article and policing vandalism has been an exceptional challenge for Wikipedians. My thanks to all who have collaborated in maintaining the integrity of this Wikipedia article, which has been getting a massive quantity of hits and needs to be maintained to our highest standards. Vaoverland (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup of intro

Added one-sentence scouting report, and removed some details of his legal proceedings that can be found later in the article. This shorter intro lets the reader get a faster snapshot of his situation, and should improve overall article flow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.39.209 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive beginning April 2008

10th worst #1 pick

rivals.com just named him the 10th worst #1 pick in NFL history. should this be added? http://nfldraft.rivals.com/photofeature.asp?SID=1164&fid=22666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvk41 (talkcontribs) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think so... but the question is where. I'll try to fit it in somewhere tomorrow. Let it grow on me. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 22:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Return to the falcons

The owner Arthur Blank has not ruled out letting michael vick return to the team. Can we get this added by some one who is good with making these updates? ? http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/falcons/stories/2008/04/01/blank_0402.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwardj (talkcontribs) 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article

i must say, this article is very well put together and lengthy. it should be nominated for Feature article or something. LukeTheSpook (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its anywhere near ready... maybe GA or a independent review... feel free to take it there if you wanna. Oh, and thanks.  ;) Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Vick


HE IS A CRIMINAL!!!

Wachovia Bank

"In March, 2007, an Atlantic Wine & Package store and adjacent Tasting Room restaurant at 3560 Camp Creek Parkway opened in the suburban Atlanta town of East Point.[72] (A primarily African American community, East Point is home to R&B and hip hop groups such as TLC, OutKast, Coolbreeze, Organized Noize, and Goodie Mob, as well as an alternative rock group, Seven Envy). [73]


What is the relevance of the part in parentheses?Drakon09 (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another question about the paragraph above. At the end it has Master_Doc12-05-06.pdf as reference, but the only thing in the paragraph that I can also find in the reference is "Atlantic Wine". The reference doesn't seem to mention any of the bands listed in the paragraph. The paragraph talks about Tasting Room opening in East Point while the pdf talks about proposed location in Sandy Springs, Georgia. --EarthFurst (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000 draft

Micheal Vick was also drafted in the 30th round of the 2000 mlb draft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.206.72 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag for rewrite

Someone placed a rewrite flag in November 2008 in the dogfighting section. I have gone though a condensed many of the items without eliminating significant content or any sources. I am removing the flag, since no one has listed the specific concerns here as required by WP procedures. Whoever placed the flag, please advise if your concerns have not been adequately resolved. Thanks. Vaoverland (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ewwwus up kc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.66.9 (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another user (apparently new to our efforts on this article) has opted to move almost all of the legal and financial troubles content, including the portions which are current events and ongoing, into a sub-article. I feel that move is inappropriate. I would agree that some of the many details could be moved if we don't lose the big picture in the primary article, but what has been done as of now is unacceptable. I will wait a few hours to see comments before proceeding. Vaoverland (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lacking any comments, and having not heard from the user mentioned above, I have restored the article and references as we had it before the above "purge". No explanation was given. However, the article is getting too long (again), which may have been a motivation. If we feel that we cannot trim it evenly, and that it needs subsections, many of the details from the legal problems section, as well as a lot of the details of has past accomplishments in football, may be appropriate targets for subarticles and more abbreviated summarization in the principal article. However, I feel strongly that this attempt to improve it, which mostly was a simple moving all mention of the bankruptcy and financial issues entirely to a subarticle, does not meet the standards we have been maintaining including NPOV for the difficult and dynamic situation involving a living person. Vaoverland (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref the preceding thread, the article entitled Legal problems of Michael Vick was essentially created as a major chop and paste of complete sections and references, all of which have since been restored to the main article. Since the new sub article was created, duplicative portions in the main article have been updated, and neither the creating user nor anyone else has made any attempt to update the sub. Alternatively, we could simply delete the sub at this point.

If the growing size of the main article Michael Vick is an issue we must address, I have suggested above how we might go about condensing the main article, and/or creating subs for major topics such as either his past athletic accomplishments (a static situation) and the legal issues (which are ongoing) into sub articles. As I previously stated, maintaining the integrity of our article(s) involving a living person is challenging for the difficult and dynamic situation, and we need consensus and collaboration on major changes such as were undertaken a few days ago unilaterally by a single editor without any discussion here in this instance. Thanks to all of you who have been working over such a long time on this article. Vaoverland (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACTION: This was completed by another User on March 25, 2009, and the former legal problems article (with duplicative content) was changed into a redirect to the main article. Vaoverland (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Vick Chew Toy

http://www.vickdogchewtoy.com/ Can we find a way of adding this into the article? Green Squares (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Lead, Keeping up with current events

I have again updated the lead to reflect updated information in several other sections 1. no half-way house, now will be house arrest, 2. new troubles with Labor Dept. 3. important comment from NFL Commissioner Goodell about how he will decide end of Vick's suspension. Condensed other conetent in lead to make room, it is longer than ideal but fairly balanced and comprehensive I believe, so I think the template flag requesting lead improvements has been satisfied for now. Vaoverland (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the lead's a little long, but i think it's necessary to have a long lead with a subject like Vick. Now all we got to do is improve the article to Good article standards!. Ringerfan23 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the lead's a little long"? It's outrageous. 24.1.54.131 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does need to be shortened alot. But it's better than to have it really long than really short. Ringerfan23 (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the lead information exists throughout the rest of the article. It's duplicating, and it's really unwieldy and needs trimming back significantly.
Beyond establishing "who" Vick is, and what he has done briefly, no further information is required - and is bogging the article down in "recentism".--Koncorde (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the below needs to find a new home, or be cut entirely. it's all very interesting - but of absolutely no relevance to establish who the article is referring to.--Koncorde (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In April 2007, discovery of the elaborate dog fighting complex at an estate he owned in Surry County, Virginia led to criminal investigations, massive publicity, suspension from the NFL, and loss of lucrative promotional agreements. Facing multiple federal and state felony criminal charges, under plea agreements, he accepted several felony convictions and was sentenced to a 23 month federal prison term and small fines. Additional years of state prison time were suspended upon condition of future good behavior. [1][2] [3] With federal release due in July 2009, he will serve the final 60 days under house arrest in Virginia.
Vick's financial affairs, later said to have already been in disarray from poor management and bad investments, were severely affected by lost income, legal expenses, and litigation, mismanagement and allegedly fraudulent actions by a series of friends and financial advisers. However, with his income (from prison work) reduced to less than a dollar a day, he continued spending $30,000 a month to support his mother, brother Marcus, a sister, and his three children and their mothers and maintaining multiple luxury homes in several states and a fleet of luxury vehicles. Soon he was facing lawsuits from creditors and attempts to collect millions in judgments they won.
In July 2008, he filed for shelter under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, with assets as of March 2009 of $10 million (USD) and liabilities of $22.5 million.[4] His bankruptcy reorganization plan relied upon 1. a return to his professional football career and 2. earning a "substantial living", which would be the primary source of funds to repay his creditors.[5] Vick proposed keeping two large luxury homes in the Hampton Roads area, including a new $2 million dollar riverfront mansion in Suffolk, all motor vehicles, jewelry and other substantial personal property. To satisfy creditors, he planned to keep the first $750,000 per year of income, with a portion in excess of that to be used by the court to discharge his debts on a sliding scale.[6] [7]
Michael Vick's possible return to NFL play faces several obstacles. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told USA Today "He's going to have to demonstrate to the larger community — not just to the NFL community and to me — that he has remorse for what he did and that he recognizes mistakes that he made" before his suspension would be lifted[8] Falcons owner Arthur Blank had previously expressed hope that "after spending a couple years in jail, he'll come out a different person" but stated that Vick would not be welcomed back to play for his team, which has "moved on"; Falcons have since acknowledged exploring trade scenarios to another NFL club.[9] There are also questions about his skills after several years of non-play, and adverse publicity any prospective team would face.
The bankruptcy judge ordered Vick to appear in person on April 2-3, 2009, as he felt he needed direct contact to assess his credibility for the plan. [10] Judge Santoro learned that recently settlement agreements had been reached by Vick's attorneys which would allow the U.S. Department of Labor and the Virginia Department of Taxation to withdraw their objections to the reorganization plan. Vick also spoke about his crime, saying that it was "heinous" and he felt "true remorse". He also heard testimony about Vick's plans to pay creditors, which included working 40 hours a week in a $10 an hour construction job promised by a major contractor and longtime acquaintance, until he was reinstated to the NFL, and hired by a team, where he hopes to play in the Fall 2009 season. His agent Joel Segal also testified to a pending $600,000 documentary deal as well as his plans to place Vick with a NFL team as soon as obstacles by the League and the Falcons are satisfied. Although the majority of Vick's creditors, representing about 80% of his currently listed liabilities, agreed to this plan, news media observers noted that an alternative complete liquidation plan would net insufficient funds to pay his unsecured creditors anything.
On April 3, Judge Santoro rejected the plan as unsound, saying it was too strongly predicated on a very substantial income, which is not assured, and that he will have only about 21% of the $1 million in funds on hand to begin the plan on May 1 as requested to confirm the bankruptcy plan. [11] Under the rejected plan, Vick would also need at least $7 million to $8 million more annually just to break even after three years. About $3.5 million of that would have gone to pay Vick's bankruptcy lawyers. "There's no evidence that he's going to be able to make that kind of money," the judge said. [12] The judge also was critical of the plan's provisions for Vick to maintain two houses and four cars.[13]
Adjourning the case until March 28, Santoro told Vick to work with his advisers to create a new plan, and suggested that Vick begin by liquidating one or both of his Virginia homes, and three cars that Vick had intended to keep, and "buy a house more within his means."[14][15] Regarding maintaining a costly lifestyle for so many people, the judge added "You can't be everything to everybody. If you do, you're going to be nothing to anybody." [16]
Please review WP:Lead "The lead section ...serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic....should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article...summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist....should contain no more than four paragraphs..."

We have been striving to maintain the WP:Lead criteria, among many others, for over two years now. Your efforts to cut it to a sentence or two may be well-intentioned but I think are inconsistent with the Manual of Style. Vaoverland (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this over half the article and this article is way too long, how about making this it's own article? --Levineps (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • NO Lev, that question was already raised previously. Right now, IMHO the legal stuff is inseparable from the main article, which is getting many hits. It is hard enough to keep that accurate, balanced and up-to-date. 19:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"Recentism" is an invented term by some Wikipedians; I (and many other Wikipedians I believe) am of the thinking that some recentism is not necessarily an undesirable thing, as this is a dynamic enyclopedia which seeks to be a credible and balanced source at the time it is accessed. (i.e. This article is one of the top Google search hits currently for searching "Michael Vick"). As the current events are simplified into history, and as legal issues and bankruptcy move to resolution, we can condense details which will be of much less interest at that point. Please note we already followed that routine with details of the investigation and open issues, as the plea bargains made those much less significant in the longer view. Case in point, much of the earlier content about the Virginia charges (finally settled in November 2008) has been condensed into basic summaries as all that was resolved. Currently, some of the details about specific debts not in dispute can be condensed more into simpler summaries, and I'll work on that if no one else gets to it first. If sports-oriented editorss want to improve this article, why not get better references for his past athletic accomplishments to help balance the quality and presentation of that portion of his overall story? Vaoverland (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there be a mention of his Mansion that was on auction that nobody baught? Source. RF23 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

For such a big article, this is lacking any recent pictures. Sure there isn't any pictures of Vick walking out of a courtroom or something? RF23 (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the same. However, it seems that even the news media haven't been able to get photos of him during the most recent proceedings. The best I saw was his shadow inside the heavily tinted windows of a WTRJ SUV, and his mother and fiancee walking away from their parked SUV's near the federal court at Newport News. Many news sources are running August 2007 photos from his appearance in Richmond to submit his guilty plea. Vaoverland (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added some pictures from commons that fit in, and added in external images templates... I think in a couple days i'm gonna go through and rewrite the entire athletics portion of his life, properly sourcing it this time around. RF23 (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

I am working on some general reorganization, especially of the portions currently listed under the broad category of "Legal". I believe these can be properly separated as falling into the categories of Criminal and Financial matters, which will help us move toward consolidation of unnecessary details as they appear to be progressing toward resolutions. This is mostly moving of existing content, with very little if any substantive change. Vaoverland (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial troubles

I think at this point a lot of the details which are in various sections listed by major creditor can and should be condensed and summarized without losing the overall content. I see a few items in the bankruptcy papers which should be added, but bottom line, this section can end up a lot briefer. I will begin working on that unless anyone feels otherwise, and if so, please elaborate here on the Talk page. I am also trying to keep up with the developments in this regard (i.e. bankruptcy case, fraud claims against 3rd parties, etc.) and will try to keep those portions as current, balanced, and accurate as possible. Glad to respond to comments, thoughts, volunteers to collaborate on all this work, etc. Vaoverland (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expert Dog Fighter 121-1 all time record —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevick33 (talkcontribs) 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the 'link to external content' that purports to link to a courtroom sketch of vick actually links to a picture of someone (presumably a court officer) pushing a cart of file boxes..... could someone fix this? 24.124.89.105 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a courtroom sketch of vick at one point, but CNN must have gotten mixed up in their image filing management, because it still links to the same image, the image has just changed. I removed it for now. RF23 (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PICTURE

ITD BE NICE TO SEE A FACE INSTEAD OF STARING AT HIS ASS IMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.100.173 (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia. We have to use free-use pictures. When dealing with football articles, most free-use pictures suck. The only times they are any good if it's a picture of a player signing autographs or something, a closeup without a helmet off or something. The picture in the infobox is the best free picture available. RF23 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Foxx's defense of Vick

Anybody else remember this? Foxx was on a talk show and was asked what he thought about the Michael Vick dog fighting thing, and Foxx said something to the effect of how in his neighborhood when he was a kid, people picked on/tortured dogs all that time and it was "normal", basically trying to rationalize Vick's behavior. I cannot possibly be the only person who remembers this. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Tony Dungy is now parroting the same line, I personally don't think it needs to be pursued. It's a rationalization & has racial overtones that this article does not need. Djeaux (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racial overtones? Do you mean sociological overtones? How is race involved in this?137.111.47.29 (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Under "Suspension by the NFL"

It should include, "There is currently a petition to Commissioner Roger Goodell which asks Commissioner Goodell to reinstate Michael Vick to the NFL at [1]."

 Doing... Let me run this by another editor before I commit the change.. not sure about the link at the end. — Deon555talkI'm BACK! 12:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Well I can't find anyone at the moment, so I'm going to add it but without the link on the end for now. Have a read of WP:EL regarding external links. — Deon555talkI'm BACK! 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Under "Suspension by the NFL"

It should include, "There is currently a petition to Commissioner Roger Goodell which asks Commissioner Goodell to reinstate Michael Vick to the NFL at [2]."

Once would've done it ;-). As above, I'll check with someone else first. — Deon555talkI'm BACK! 12:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doh. Sorry for the double post, at first it didn't show up. Is there any way something can be included which will allow readers to see where the petition is located on the web? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letvickplay (talkcontribs) 16:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps at the bottom by external links? Or is that reserved for specific websites? Sorry for posting in two different areas, I'm having some trouble working this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letvickplay (talkcontribs) 16:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely inappropriate and not neutral at all. The text should read "Some NFL fans have started website petitions for AND against Michael Vick being allowed back in the NFL." There should be no links to ANY of the petitions. This violates Wikipedia's neutral POV policy clearly in support of Michael Vick. The user's handle is "Letvickplay" if that tells you anything. Please keep this article neutral. Halfdemon (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Halfdemon[reply]

I've added the more neutral language, with a citation tag.--Gloriamarie (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Currently, there are only statistics for Vick's years at Virginia Tech listed in the article. Why not the stats for his NFL career? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.100.29 (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are lazy. Feel free to add them in with a source.RF23 (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, just realized IP's can't edit. Post the stats here, and i'm sure someone will be glad to add them in.RF23 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

typo edit request

Under 'Incidents, criminal troubles' there is the following sentence: "He is no free to sign with any club that will have him and participate in all team practices." - it should read "He is NOW free to sign..." 93.152.158.178 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

split article

I would suggest splitting this article as the size of this article is getting too big. I noticed the financial troubles total about a 1/3 of the article. Can we make an article out of this?--Levineps (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My computer almost died when I edited it, this should really be split up.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if it might not be a good idea to trim some of the stuff out? I noticed that the legal and financial troubles section really are a lot longer then they maybe should be, and going into a bit too fine of detail. Not that I think they should be excised, just trimmed down. I'm not sure if a splitting article is reasonable without putting undue weight on the negative aspects of the person. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Eagles

ESPN just announced during the Steelers-Cardinals game that Vick signed a two-year deal with the Eagles. Here's an article [3] if anyone is watching this page and feels like doing some rewriting... FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error. Someone Please Fix!

Philadelphia Eagles On August 13, 2009, Vick signed a two-year contract with the Philadelphia Eagles.[28] He will earn $1.6 million in his first year and $5 million in his (team option) second year. Vick will be able to participate in all team practices and meetings, as well as the Eagles' last two preseason games. He will then be eligible for reinstatement in week 6.

Note Vick will be eligible for reinstatement by week 6 "at the latest" not in week 6 as stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rydewnd2 (talkcontribs) 07:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error: Sentenced to 23 months, but served 18

The second sentence says that Vick served 23 months. Actually, Vick was sentenced to 23 months, but only served 18. Source: this Washington Post article. Note the third sentence of the third paragraph: "He was sentenced to 23 months in federal prison, and began his incarceration in November 2007". 23 months later takes him to October 2009. Also, note the first sentence of the fourth paragraph: "Vick was released from prison to home confinement on May 20, 2009". 97.124.198.207 (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vick should never be able to play again. The only reason he is sorry is that he got discovered. The Eagles should droop him like a bad habit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.132.178 (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was 23 if I remember correctly. You're right he spent 18 in jail; but he served five in home confinement.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vick's Number as an Eagle

According to the eagles roster this morning, Vick will be number 7. I'm adding it now. http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/team/Roster.asp 98.114.4.38 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, glad to see that he is finally able to play again. I think that everyone should get a second chance, so long as they are truely sorry for what they have done. Lets just hope he is still as good as he was. I am also glad to see the Eagles are big enough to stand out and give him the chance. 12.177.80.3 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]



he's not a quarterback on the eagles he's a player —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seang619 (talkcontribs) 02:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No he's a quarterback.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

60 minutes interview

can someone add the transcripts to the 60 minutes interview aired last week?

I don't think that's a good idea, why does it really matter what he said on 60 minutes and the transcript would be too long and unneccessary.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not link to it at the end? I agree that the transcript would be too long, but this article is already too long.

An error in record nfl holders

{{editsemiprotected}} In this text:

Vick and teammate RB Warrick Dunn (1,140) became the first quarterback/running back duo to each surpass 1,000 rushing yards in a single season, and one of only five teammates to accomplish the feat in NFL history, with the latest being New York Giants' running backs Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward in 2008.

Delete:

, and one of only five teammates to accomplish the feat in NFL history, with the latest being New York Giants' running backs Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward in 2008


Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward aren't a quarterback/runningback duo they are both running backs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Myfakeaccount84 (talkcontribs) 00:04, 20 August 2009


 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of the article. I think that is meant to be that way, though. To paraphrase: they are the first and only QB/RB duo to each surpass 1000 yards, and one of only five sets of teammates playing any position, the latest being RB/RB duo Jacobs and Ward. Celestra (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this entry's length justified?

This is a ridiculously long, and repetitive article. (23 pages of A4).

It shouldn't be more than 5 pages.

I'd suggest either breaking it up into sub articles Based on his Biography, Sporting Career and Dog Fighting Incident; and/or cutting about 50% of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.123.23 (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's too long but Wikipedia has no rules saying how long an article can be based on justification.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]