Jump to content

Talk:Tom Brady/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Greatest QB in NFL history

We've had some back-and-forth in the lede about "many analysts and sportswriters consider Brady to be the greatest quarterback in NFL history". It used to say "among the greatest", which I feel is a safer statement. I have two problems with the statement as it currently is written: The use of "many", which is subjective, and the pragmatic issue that the current statement looks WP:FLOWERY and I feel is vandalism bait for people who dislike him. For that last reason, I feel we should avoid such an accolade at least while he is still actively playing.

As for the "many", I'd prefer to see that quantified in some way - I live in New England, so I don't know the relative proportion of analysts willing to commit to such a statement outside of this region. Comments? Tarl N. (discuss) 06:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Problem here is that clearly he's among the Greatest QBs ever. But it just wouldn't be right to blindly assert that he is the greatest as if that is the accepted view of nearly everyone. The phrase "among the greatest" seems to have been the agreed upon consensus and I can't think of a better way to phrase it without causing other problems that are just worse in various ways. Right now, leave it until there is something better to replace it. Sometimes "least worst" phrasing is the best option. dreiss2 (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
But “greatest” is undefinable and unknowable, so it will never be verified, and “among the greatest” makes it even mushier. Stacking a bunch of links and saying “many believe” is WP:SYNTH. Plus, with the demand on sports columnists to issue takes (hot or otherwise), following big sporting events, it’s impossible to know if the flood of “GOAT” declarations isn’t at least partly WP:RECENTISM. Because “greatest” can’t be measured or defined, I’d leave it out of the lede. I think it’s fine to have a quote from a trusted observer (I don’t know, Peter King is okay right?), and list things that are defined or quantified. But in my opinion, “greatest” belongs on sports talk radio, not an encyclopedia. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
If we’re able to say that he is considered among the greatest why is it a problem to say many consider him the greatest? Numerous respected sources have anointed Brady as the greatest. I’d understand if we were saying he is the greatest quarterback, but we’re saying many consider him to be which is a fact.Bmorrow151 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
We shouldn't be saying "among the greatest" in the first place for all the reasons I mentioned above, and "many" and "consider" make it worse. "Many" people say a lot of things, some reasonable, some not. And whether one "considers" someone to be "great" is not a verifiable fact. I think it's fine to quote a reliable observer calling Tom Brady "the greatest". It is problematic when you WP:SYNTHezie many disparate sources to come to a conclusion about how people collectively feel about an unknowable quality of an athlete. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It’s almost like you’ve never watched a game of American football. Trillfendi (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPOV and WP:IUC item 1(d). As it happens, I'm a Brady and Patriots fan, but I recognize that outside this region many do not see him or the team in a positive light. I've long been concerned that WP:PUFFERY text seems to attract vandalism from people who are not his/their fans, so we should make a particular effort to avoid it. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Even analysts who try to deny it still find themselves admitting he’s the greatest quarterback to touch a football. The numbers speak for themselves. If there is a professional consensus (apparently there is), we’re supposed to acknowledge it as such. It’s not about his likeability. Millions of people despise the motherfucker but it hasn’t affected his ability to play. Trillfendi (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
What is "greatest"? What is the outer limit of being "among the greatest"? How many is "many"? Why is it important that Wikipedia mentions his greatness? If numbers speak for themselves, can you find a source to verify as such without resorting to WP:SYNTH? Ytoyoda (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Greatest is a combination of things such as him winning the most games, winning the most Super Bowls of any player, and discipline he brings to his performance. If people want to read further the citations are already in the article.Trillfendi (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Winning the most games and winning the most Super Bowls are quantifiable and irrefutable. "Discipline he brings" is a specific quality that can be cited to a reliable, independent observer. Those are fine things to include in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, you haven't shown that "the greatest" isn't unknowable, undefinable or prone to recency bias. "Many people are saying" and "you're hearing it more and more" don't make something encyclopedic. Ytoyoda (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The day after the AFC championship, ESPN (of all places) was marveling at his “excellence”, despite the fact that they just got lucky with a reversed touchdown and coin toss. If anything it would be unneutral to specifically attribute people in the lede. There are countless articles about what makes Tom Brady great for you to peruse and pick what you see fit.Trillfendi (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
So yes, many people are saying it and you're hearing it more and more, I get it. That doesn't make something encyclopedic. It's just a take, albeit not a very hot one. Let's put it this way: if it's so self evident that the praise of Tom Brady as GOAT is universal, why don't you trust the reader to come to the same logical conclusion? Ytoyoda (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Most of America wanted his career to end in January and look how that turned out. The reader comes here for a career and life summary, and many readers want to come here to vandalize, but that curriculum vitae includes accolades nonetheless. If it wasn’t encyclopedic, there wouldn’t be think pieces about it damn near every week. It’s an analyst’s job to do just that: analyze the playing and give their professional opinion. His reputation and legacy obviously precedes him. If they’re clearly in agreement about it, that’s that. Wikipedia isn’t censored. No different than those who call Meryl Streep the greatest actress. Trillfendi (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
We are supposed to post facts on here and it’s a fact that many of the most respected members of the NFL world consider Brady to be the greatest. We are not saying it’s a fact Brady is the greatest, but it’s a fact that many consider him to be. There is nothing wrong with letting readers who might be new to the NFL know where many place Brady in the long line of quarterbacks. Bmorrow151 (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bmorrow151: I think this is reasonable, but I'd just be careful how it's worded. For example, I wouldn't use "considered", because the feeling of a mass of unnamed people at any given time is unknowable, and "many", because it comes off weasel-y and less impactful, even with support and loses its impact. If it were up to me, I'd say something like "Observers have ranked Brady among the best quarterbacks of all time. Pro Hall of Fame inductee John Elway said Brady was the "best quarterback to ever walk the planet" while Sports Illustrated ran a cover dubbing him "GOAT" (greatest of all time) after he won his record-breaking sixth career Super Bowl in 2019." Ytoyoda (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Editing to add: I’d also be careful who’s cited with their opinions. I’d avoid the Skip Bayless/Mike Francesca/Max Kellerman types because their job is to make declarative statements that stir up “debate”, and I’d also avoid his teammates and coaches for obvious reasons. And instead of having many, many articles to make this point, we could also use articles like https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/02/04/many-great-players-are-calling-tom-brady-the-best-ever/, a single article about many people calling him the best, which avoids WP:SYNTH. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: That's where you're wrong. Nobody is in clear agreement about that. Just because many do doesn't mean everybody, or even most people, do. And if only many do, then that's clearly just their opinion. 23:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bmorrow151: I agree. When you search Greatest quarterback of all time on any major search engine, almost every single result will unanimously agree that Brady is number one. Even more convincing, many of these articles and rankings were published before his last three consecutive Super Bowl runs. His place as the greatest quarterback of all time has become so collectively agreed upon by fans, coaches, players, analysts, and sportswriters that stating "He is widely regarded as the greatest quarterback of all time" is fact. It is important for readers of the article to know where Brady ranks historically among the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history as far as collective opinion is concerned, and an omission of this detail is doing a disservice to those readers. Furthermore, I consider the contributors who continually remove or alter this statement from the lede to be vandalizing the article as a means of supporting their own, personal favorite quarterback (I.E. Joe Montana or Aaron Rodgers). Mwatz122 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mwatz122: You wrote: I consider the contributors who continually remove or alter this statement from the lede to be vandalizing the article as a means of supporting their own, personal favorite quarterback (I.E. Joe Montana or Aaron Rodgers). Check your assumptions at the door, you're being actively insulting. I oppose declaratory statements of the nature "he is considered the greatest" because it becomes a magnet for vandalism. There are many people who disagree at this time, and frankly, while he's still playing, we won't get neutral views on the subject. It would be better to avoid such commentary in this article until some time after HoF election, to avoid WP:RECENTISM and other partisan ranting. The sheer quantity of articles you can find claiming Tom Brady as "greatest of all time" does not make it fact, it means it's getting a lot of coverage in the recent press and search engines are good at finding those articles. I've heard a number of commentators (Joe Montana for one), who disagree. Others won't comment while he's actively playing. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Number one, I don't care what search engines say about the greatest QBs. All they do is collect sources for us to look at. And I don't care if many people, or even most people think Brady is the greatest, it's not fact. Those are merely opinions. When I say that Joe Montana is the greatest quarterback of all time, I am stating my opinion, which is widely shared among many people. But I don't see anybody going on his article saying that "many consider Montana to be the greatest QB in NFL history". So why are we doing this for Brady? That makes no sense. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Aren’t you just proving my point though? I said that I considered altering the lede vandalism and you oppose changing the lede because it is “vandalism bait.” We shouldn’t omit important information from an article simply because it could be vandalized - that’s just the nature of Wikipedia.

The statement that he is widely regarded as the greatest quarterback of all time remains a fact, and in my opinion it is worthy of inclusion in the article’s lede. Sorry that I disagree with your assessment, but I would be happy to hear opinions from others on the subject. Mwatz122 (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't make Brady being the GOAT a fact. Look at the articles on the other QBs called the GOAT. Mk8mlyb (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Statements like "... regarded by many as ..." can be used if it is attributable to an analysis done by a reliable source. Per WP:WEASEL: The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate theno original research or neutral point of view policies. I don't think it's generally debatable that Brady is considered by many to be the greatest; however, it's fair to expect attribution from a source(s) that state that many others hold this position. This is different than citing many sources that state their own opinion that he is the greatest. Ideally, Wikipedia should not be the one counting sources and declaring ourselves that "many" hold an opinion.—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Thanks for phrasing it better than I could have. That's largely the problem I have; we're speaking in Wikipedia's voice, and backing it up with citation overkill of writers making the case Tom is the GOAT. As opposed to having a citation that many/some/most writers/players/pundits/coaches consider him to be the greatest. If we could find a reliable citation for such a statement (as opposed to arguments making the case), I'd withdraw my objection. The closest I could find in those half-dozen citations was five-thirty-eight,'s parenthetical (Many of the articles argued that, yes, Brady is now the best ever.). That doesn't even say "many considered", but "many argued", and that, in the restricted arena of articles in the immediate aftermath of a superbowl victory, where we should worry about the equivalent of WP:RECENTISM. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Guys, is this really a thing? Let's just stick with the original version of the article. I know it's a fact that many consider him to be the greatest, but it's a fact that many don't. There's a reason the whole thing is a debate still, and if we put one guy over the rest, we're essentially making interpretations of it all. We may not look like we're proclaiming him to be the greatest, but it feels like we are. And yes, the same goes for Montana, Unitas, and the rest. I don't want any of the articles proclaiming theirs to be the greatest, even if it's my guy. The Jerry Rice article is a perfect example of this. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we stop the edit warring? It's clear we don't have consensus even among editors on this page, and the status quo ante was among the greatest quarterbacks. For the stronger statement, we need a specific cite saying what group thinks so (players, coaches, New England fans, sports writers, ...), whatever qualifier (some, most, all, many, ...), and when (now, Superbowl era, all NFL history, ...). Right now we're using Wikipedia's voice without being able to defend it. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I just reverted it to the most "stable" version and agree with Tarl N. If there is over whelming consensus to change it, so be it. How about a well worded RFC? This is not easy, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the stable version, but I am open to being convinced otherwise, which hasn't happen based on what I have read above. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are too many people out there who hate Tom Brady and can’t accept that it’s a fact that many do consider him the greatest quarterback of all time. I prefer the version that lets readers know where the majority of major publications and analysts place him, but it’s obvious too many people have a problem with this and will just keep changing it. Even if we agree here different people will keep changing it. Bmorrow151 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Many people also consider Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, and so many other quarterbacks to be the greatest of all time. The way you put it is manipulative and is essentially Wikipedia's way of proclaiming Tom Brady as the greatest of all time. I don't like that. I respect the hell out of Tom Brady. I really do. But until all debate ends, which it never will, we cannot put that on Brady's article. Again, the stable version and status quo ante is the way to go. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: As a broncos fan of 24 years I have to agree, there is no debate. The fact that you've had to debate whether there even is a debate to begin with is a fact that there really is no debate to begin with. The debate ended in 2007 when he utterly destroyed the NFL when he was given actual REAL weapons to play with along with a decent defense. The debate ended over 12 years ago as far as I'm concerned. Thus making this 'debate' non-sense old news. Everyone has anointed him the title of the G.O.A.T. I cant stand that he is viewed as the goat by everyone except myself, I am a Broncos and 49rs fan (who loves montana, elway, and manning but DESPISES Brady), the guy just pisses me off not giving my teams a chance in hell to win anything while I'm still breathing. But the facts are the facts. No one holds a candle to this guys accomplishments. We even tried suspending him to curb his pure dominance, he responding by taking the hardware 2 out of 3 years.... TWICE. Who does that? Like really? How do you take 2 out of 3 in your career twice. Thats just obscene. An article that does a great job of explaining why there is no debate can be found here where my own team's best QB (Elway) and regarded as one of the best QBs to play acknowledges that Brady is the Goat, then it's time to toss in the towel and give the guy his due. Elway anoints Brady as Goat[[User:[REDACTED - Oshwah]|[REDACTED - Oshwah]]] ([[User talk:[REDACTED - Oshwah]|talk]]) 03:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)<small>— [[User:[REDACTED - Oshwah]|[REDACTED - Oshwah]]] ([[User talk:[REDACTED - Oshwah]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/[REDACTED - Oshwah]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Whoa, buddy, the debate is NEVER over. Did you not see how Brady performed in the most recent Super Bowl? Very bad by GOAT standards, and even in general, he was just mediocre. There is ALWAYS a debate on whether he is the greatest. Even when Brady didn't always have the offensive weapons to work with, he regularly had one of the best defenses in the NFL, one of the best offensive lines, and one of the best head coaches and defensive coordinators in the NFL. That alone is enough to cause serious debate as to whether Brady truly is the best. In my view, no. He's got less passing yards than Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees, got beaten in the Super Bowl by Eli Manning and Nick Foles, lost ten playoff games, more than Joe Montana, threw 31 interceptions in the playoffs, five of which came in the Super Bowl, compared to Montana's 21 interceptions and zero in the Super Bowl, and plays in a heavily pass-first league which was pioneered by Peyton Manning. Oh, and by the way, Manning essentially took four different teams to the Super Bowl and won two of them--in particular, that 2006 Colts team had a defense that ranked 23rd in the NFL that year with 360 points, and the 2013 Broncos allowed 399 points--for reference, the most points the Patriots defense ever allowed in a single season was 346. And hey, how about that "Super Bowl titles" argument everyone loves to pull out? Honestly, while the championship argument is pretty legitimate, it's also very dumb, because did you forget about how Brady performed in the Super Bowls he played in? In Super Bowl XXXVI, he completed 16 of 27 passes, threw for just 145 yards, a touchdown, and passer rating of 86.2, and wins because Adam Vinatieri is one of the greatest kickers in NFL history, while in Super Bowl LII, he completed 28 of 48 passes, bagged 505 yards and three touchdowns for a 115.3 passer rating, and loses--oh, and he got strip-stacked by the Eagles, who promptly converted that into a field goal. Meanwhile, when he's not throwing for just 236 yards and two touchdowns in Super Bowl XXXIX and still wins by just three points because Donovan McNabb, who outclassed him in every statistical category, threw three interceptions and Deion Branch caught 11 of his (Brady's) 33 passes, he stains his MVP-caliber performance (37/50 completion percentage for 328 yds, 4 TDs) with two interceptions and almost loses Super Bowl XLIX because the Seahawks stupidly chose to pass on the one-yard line. So how exactly is the Super Bowl argument the be-all-end-all that everyone says it is? It's not. It's one of the most important factors, yes, but it's not the biggest. And what so many people time and time again mistakenly think, due to this whole "Super Bowl" argument, is that Brady is some invincible, special, god-like player who can just will wins out of nowhere. That's not really true--he's one of the great comeback artists of all time and a clutch player, but he's just the legendary captain of one of the greatest dynasties in NFL history, which is essentially the modern day parallel to the '80s San Francisco 49ers dynasty--Brady and Montana as the QBs, Belicheck and Walsh as the head coaches, and so on. Brady's no greater than Montana or Unitas, or even Manning--he just had one of the best support teams around him to complement his own greatness. You know why I'm tired of people giving Eli Manning so much disrespect by saying he got lucky and was bailed out by a great defense? It's because of this. The media constantly lambasts Eli for the Giants' constant failure while forgetting he had an MVP-caliber season in 2011 and took a 9-win Giants squad whose defense (27th) and running game (32nd) was absolutely terrible to the Super Bowl victory; he's thrown for 55,981 yards (7th all time) and completed 360 touchdown passes (8th all time). So how do you think I'm gonna feel when they're kneeling at Brady's altar after Super Bowl LIII and proclaiming him the GOAT just because he has six titles, even though the way he played didn't really end the GOAT debate at all? You're right, I'm not gonna buy it. And no, not even the majority of people have called Brady the GOAT. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to question Brady's legacy as one of the greatest QBs of all time. He is certainly one of them, and the man is a role model I truly look up to--he was a boy from California who grew up idolizing Joe Montana and dressed up on Halloween in a Niners uniform, and was drafted in the sixth round by the New England Patriots, 199th overall; even today, he's still taking pay cuts to help his team win and conducting himself as a class act. But because of everything I say here, he isn't the greatest of all time. And yes, many people have given Brady his due. Doesn't mean that makes him the greatest of all time. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh hey guys, I've got some nice, yummy delicious sources you'd love to gobble up for dinner! Take a look at these bad boys! [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (By the way, on that last one, there was still a huge debate in the comment section on who's better.) [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk8mlyb (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The whole thing could be made far simpler and less contentious by putting the verb in the passive and leaving out a by whom part, ie: 'Brady has been called the greatest QB of all time.' This is without a doubt true, and beyond argument. And also further avoids the controversy of whether he is. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  5. ^ [5]
  6. ^ [6]
  7. ^ [7]
  8. ^ [8]
  9. ^ [9]
  10. ^ [10]
  11. ^ [11]
  12. ^ [12]
  13. ^ [13]
  14. ^ [14]
  15. ^ [15]
  16. ^ [16]
  17. ^ [17]
  18. ^ [18]
  19. ^ [19]
  20. ^ [20]
  21. ^ [21]
  22. ^ [22]
  23. ^ [23]

What sources say

Because Wikipedia's content "is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors," let's see what the actual sources say. He's the greatest of all time. Period. Full stop. (ESPN) Tom Brady greatest QB of all time? It’s now safe to make that argument (Denver Post). But none of those doubts will change the answer to the question he answered Sunday, the question of who is the best quarterback of all time. That answer is definitive. It's over. It's done. (Bleacher Report). Brady has earned the right, even as an active player, to be called the greatest quarterback in NFL history. (NFL.com) Brady, 41, the oldest quarterback to win a Super Bowl, showed why he is the greatest quarterback ever. (LA Times). Those are just the sources used in the article (and none are from Boston media, FWIW). A simple Google search shows numerous other articles saying the same thing. As for who calls him the greatest of all time, it's sports writers, obviously. I don't know why that particular part matters, but it's pretty simple. Calidum 13:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

What you have is a number of quotes from sports writers presenting arguments that he's the GOAT. That tells us that some writers argue he's the greatest (in varying terms). The stronger statement in Wikipedia's voice that "many consider him the greatest" is the one I have a problem with. The "many" is usually read as "most", and I have no way to quantify whether even among sports writers that would be accurate. And there's the issue that these pieces are written in the aftermath of an event, at a time when hype is customary. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
EXACTLY. The original, stable version kept it neutral and said he was "among" the greatest. Joe Montana, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and the other QBs got the "among the" treatment, so why are we trying to give Tom Brady any special treatment here? This has nothing to do with my personal opinion, although if you're curious, I consider Joe Montana to be the greatest and Brady at number 2--again, though, that has nothing to do with this. Honestly, I just think this whole thing is being done by people who are trying to impose their view of Tom Brady as the greatest on the entire wiki, and not only is that just an opinion, it's THAT very thing that's making me unhappy. Wikipedia isn't to judge on who's the greatest of all time--that's for other sources to judge. All we do is collect information from all of those sources and put in on here for others to see. So no, we should not be putting Brady as the GOAT on Wikipedia. Not only is that just an opinion, it's imposing on people and sources who think otherwise (there are more than a few). Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, "it's a fact that many consider him to be the greatest". Since when does that actually make Brady the greatest? It doesn't. It's a fact that many people don't think he's the greatest of all time, so we should just treat him the way we treat the others. That quote feels like Wikipedia's way of proclaiming Brady as the GOAT and skirting around neutrality rules. Even if 100 percent of football fans think Brady is the GOAT (which will never happen), it's just an opinion, not a fact. So we shouldn't be putting that stuff on an encyclopedia about facts. Mk8mlyb (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: The edits in question aren't actually stating that he's the greatest (that would clearly be inappropriate), but instead are approaching it indirectly by stating "many consider him the greatest". What I don't agree with in that statement, is that without qualifiers of who "many" are, and greatest in what context, it's both WP:SYNTH and WP:FLOWERY text. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Calidum: Isn't everything you're saying the very reason we should be keeping the original version? There's always been a debate about this, there always will be, and different sources call different QBs the greatest. It makes things simple, and keeps all the QBs with that statement in the same tier. Therefore, we're not giving anyone special treatment, and we just claim all of these guys as the best of all time. It's that simple. What is so hard about that? I'm not trying to favor my guy here. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Would a statement A number of sports writers have presented arguments that Brady is the greatest quarterback in NFL history be a reasonable compromise? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be ok with it, but would prefer "have said" instead of "presented arguments" because it sounds better. Calidum 03:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
A number of sports writers have argued that Brady is the greatest quarterback in NFL history? Tarl N. (discuss) 04:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, no. Brady doesn't deserve special treatment over the other QBs widely heralded as the greatest, and see my quote above this mini-section. We should just stick with the original version. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: that wording is fine with em. @Mk8mlyb: I find your argument and sources non persuasive. They all appear to be fan blogs and not reliable sources on which Wikipedia can rely. They also don’t dispute the fact that “A number of sportswriters have argued Brady is the greatest quartberback of all time,” just that their favorite quarterback is somehow better. Calidum 18:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8Mlyb: Then you're not looking carefully at who wrote the articles and just looking at the websites. Most of those sources involve sportswriters and NFL historians who know the game very well. And even if you don't agree, the point is, there is absolutely no clear consensus on who is the greatest quarterback of all time, so frankly, we should just go back to the original version. Even for the people who think the debate should have ended at several points, they still continue to debate on who is the better quarterback. A number of sportswriters have also argued that Joe Montana is the greatest quarterback of all time, and some of those sources should say that. So why Brady is getting special treatment by people who can apparently just ignore that there's no clear consensus on who's the greatest QB is beyond me. And by the way, none of those sources have false information and seem to show a very good understanding of the whole debacle, so there's that. After all, Brady did have about three Super Bowls gift-wrapped to him by the opposition (Super Bowls 39, 49, and 51). I'm still doubting. Mk8mlyb (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb What you’re saying makes absolutely no sense. You’re saying Joe Montana has less playoffs losses. Duh. That’s because he’s been in about half the playoff games Brady has. Brady has a better winning percentage which is what matters. Are we going to say Blake Bortles has less playoff losses and interceptions in the playoffs as well? Stop embarrassing yourself. And don’t make me list all Montana’s failures. The vast majority of sources say Brady. I don’t even recall the last time I saw an analyst or publication argue for Montana. Nowhere did we say Brady was the goat. We’re just stating the fact that many consider him to be. Bmorrow151 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bmorrow151 Okay, now you're not making any sense. What the hell does Blake Bortles have to do with this crap?! He's not even in the discussion, although he's not a bad QB. No, the vast majority of sources don't say Brady. Look at the sources I put and you'll understand. Everywhere you go, you'll still find arguments that Montana and other QBs are the GOAT. And no, winning percentage isn't be-all-end-all. Look at who Brady lost to in the playoffs. And yes, we're going to hold Brady accountable for these losses because apparently we're giving him all the credit for six Super Bowl wins, which doesn't make any sense--remember, as great as he played in three Super Bowls, he had them all gift-wrapped to him by the opposition. Brady lost to a Jets team led by Mark Sanchez (read: future butt-fumbler). He also lost to a Giants team led by Eli Manning, who was being considered a joke and tied for the league lead in INTs in 2007, and an Eagles team led by Nick Foles--by the way, Manning and Foles became legends because they beat Brady in the Super Bowl. And how about that 2009 loss to Joe Flacco? Those three interceptions must have really killed him. And last of all, how do you lose to Jake Plummer? In all, Brady lost to six QBs in the playoffs (Peyton and Eli Manning, Flacco, Sanchez, Plummer, and Foles), only one of which (Peyton Manning) anyone thought approached Brady's level. Brady's supporting cast--mainly, his defense, his O-line, his special teams, his coach, and his receiving corps--has always been among the best in the NFL, so much so that when Matt Cassel started for the Pats in '08, he essentially put up numbers that Tom Brady would put on a regular basis. The only reason they didn't make the playoffs that year was because they lost on tiebreaker to the Dolphins by conference record. Brady played 18 seasons in a league where QBs get much more protection, and Montana played 16 seasons in a league where QBs got killed every day and pass interference didn't exist. Montana did lose less playoff games, and even more importantly, only suffered one loss to a supposedly inferior team in the playoffs--that team was the 1987 Minnesota Vikings, led by Wade Wilson. The other two losses, in 1985 and 1986, were to Giants teams that were led by Phil Simms, Lawrence Taylor, and the Big Blue Wrecking Crew and are considered among the best of all time. Even then, he torched a Miami defense that allowed just 296 points in 1984. And did you forget Brady's game-ending pick to Marlin Jackson in the 2006 AFC Championship Game? In other words, not only did Montana lose less, he lost to competition that was considered among the best in the league. The NFC back then was widely considered to be the AFC's superior, and not only did Montana captain the best team of that NFC, he most likely could have taken the Niners to a fifth Super Bowl in 1990 had he not gotten a concussion from being hit hard in the NFC Championship Game. And your statement that "many consider Brady to be the best" is essentially Wikipedia's way of saying, "Screw it, Brady's the GOAT, and that's a fact," when that's not a sure thing at all. It's just vandalism bait. It's a way of bending neutrality rules, and while he's active, of course he's going to be getting a lot of media coverage. Doesn't mean that really makes him the GOAT. I'm not trying to hate on Tom Brady, even though I fully understand I've being giving him a lot of dirt, but no way does he warrant special treatment. Why not Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers, or heck, just Manning, Elway, Marino, and Montana? There's still a lot of debate no matter how you slice it, and that's what Wikipedia needs to reflect. When we say, "this guy is considered by many to be one of the greatest QBs of all time", we are saying that "many people consider this guy to be the GOAT." Don't get me wrong, Brady's one of the greatest, but no QB deserves to be called the GOAT on Wikipedia, since it's too close to call. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: that's impressive. You managed to dodge my whole point with that long soliloquy. That's typical though when you know you screwed up. Just admit it though. That point made no sense. You're talking about how many playoff losses and interceptions Brady has when he's been there way more than any of those quarterbacks. I also really hope you're just dodging and really aren't having that hard of time understanding my Bortles point. You're saying Brady has more playoff losses than Montana yet Brady has been there almost twice as much. That's just like saying Brady has more playoff losses than Bortles. You might not know this but when you go there twice as much as somebody you're going to most likely have more losses unless you expect the person to win the Super Bowl every year. If you want to talk about how different the game was back then fine, but don't use silly arguments like losses. By the way I'm sure Brady would have loved having Jerry Rice for 75% of his titles.Bmorrow151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You're missing the point - it's not about whether Tom is the greatest or not. We're not going to get an answer. It's what we have about what the press says about him - aside from massive citation overkill of individuals expressing their opinion, we have one reference which actually discusses what the press says: Tom Brady’s (Statistical) Place In The Pantheon Of NFL QBs. Specifically (Many of the articles argued that, yes, Brady is now the best ever.). We don't have a cite that says "many consider him the greatest", probably because it's understood that really isn't answerable. But an observation that many have argued, is objectively observable. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151 How exactly did I dodge your whole point? I gave you the stats and the facts. You said Brady's been to the playoffs more than Montana (very true), and I answered that a lot of that was because the Pats play in a joke of a division called the AFC East and a weak conference in the AFC (read: Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Browns, Raiders, and there's guaranteed to be a couple of tankers) and that Montana and the Niners had to deal with an absolutely loaded NFC. And yes, I know Jerry Rice and all. Didn't Brady have Gronk, Edelman, Branch, Moss, and a ton of other Pro Bowl-caliber receivers? Seems like the free-agency era didn't stop them from staying extending times with the Pats. And you're missing one of my points about the other QBs---the very reason Brady went to the playoffs more than them was because his supporting cast was always among the best in the league--read source 23. The Colts' defense was often mediocre, Aaron Rodgers is a meme for bailing out the Packers all the time, and Drew Brees took a Saints team whose defense ranked 20th in the NFL in '09 all the way to the Super Bowl. What part of that didn't make sense? My point is, you can't declare any QB the GOAT on Wikipedia. So why are we trying to do that for Brady? And the other QBs? I'll give you the playoff appearances, but keep in mind, Brady's anything but a one-man team. Either way, @Tarl N is right. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: And you’re missing my point. I don’t have a problem with most of your stats, because I can come up with just as many in support of Brady and against the other quarterbacks you named. I’m just pointing out that you should use stats that actually make sense. Using a stat like Brady having more playoff losses than Montana and more interceptions makes no sense. Simple. Tell me do you think it’s a big deal that Brady has 28 more touchdowns in the playoffs than Montana who is second or 5,000 more yards? Probably not, because he played in way more games. And are you really comparing Edelman and Branch to Jerry Rice? And Brady barely had a prime Moss due to injury. Montana lost numerous times with a prime Jerry Rice. And Brady’s shown over and over again he can win without Gronk being there. How many of Brady’s top receivers won a Super Bowl with another quarterback because Rice did without Montana? It doesn’t matter though because nobody is saying we should say Brady is the greatest of all time. We’re saying the vast majority of the most respected NFL publications and analysts say he is. Brady could win 10 Super Bowls and there will still be haters out there so we know we can’t state he is the greatest, but you can say where most in the NFL world place him. Bmorrow151 (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
If you are looking for stats that actually make sense, how about the fact that Brady is 4th in regular season career passer rating and 14th in postseason career passer rating. 4th and 14th do not equal GOAT. Jerry Stockton (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151: And most of those stats come from the heavy passing era that Brady plays in. And yes, Edelman and Branch are Super Bowl MVPs and Pro-Bowl receivers and Gronk is considered one of the best tight ends to ever play the game. If the "vast majority" of people said Brady, then why am I finding so many sources that say otherwise? None of them show false information, and guys like Rob Parker and others seem to show my point. Remember, Montana only suffered that one upset against Minnesota in 1987--all of the other losses were to the Cowboys and a Giants team led by Lawrence Taylor and whose QB was Phil Simms, and keep in mind, even after Montana got banked and had to leave the game, it was only a last-second Giants field goal that put the Niners down for good in the 1990 NFC Championship Game. The Giants missed the playoffs in 1991 after Montana missed the whole season, and this is a guy who led the Chiefs to the AFC Championship Game in 1993, at the end of his career. And even if most people place him as the GOAT, it's not Wikipedia's job to declare people the GOAT. Why not Rodgers and Brees? Those two are passing machines whose regular season stats outmatch Brady's, and when they led their teams to the Super Bowl, they both put on monster performances and won Super Bowl MVP. And they've had to deal with some terrible supporting casts--the Saints' defense in '09 ranked 20th in the NFL that year, and there's a reason Rodgers has become the standard of bailing out terrible teams. I'll acknowledge Brady's got the postseason stats, but so do Brees and Rodgers, and of course, Montana. Did you forget how he won two Super Bowl MVPs without Jerry Rice? He led the Niners to a near-perfect season in 1984 without the best wide receiver ever. The only reason they didn't go perfect was because of a Steelers field goal. Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: Tell me these numerous respected publications and sources that say Brady isn’t the greatest? ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Pro Football Focus, Bleacher Report, CBS, NFL.Com, ESPN survey of coaches and gms all say Brady. So tell me which ones say he’s not.
@Jerry Stockton: That’s actually a better argument even though it falls flat when you see guys like Tony Romo ranked in the top 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrow151 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151: That ESPN survey you're talking about included at least three guys who said Montana was the GOAT. Where exactly was that vast majority you were talking about? That's right, it doesn't exist. Fox Sports, I think, had an article that proclaimed Montana the GOAT. And hey, @Jerry Stockton's argument doesn't fall flat just because Tony Romo is in the top 5 in playoff QB rating. He really had some great postseason peformances, but often times, his teams just couldn't get it done. You're saying the "vast majority" of respected people say Brady is the GOAT. That's not true--even among them, there's a huge debate. So Wikipedia shouldn't be proclaiming anybody the GOAT based on that. Oh, and by the way, you haven't told me why Brady should be ranked ahead of Rodgers and Brees. Mk8mlyb (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: I’m still waiting. You said you found multiple sources that said otherwise. Where are they? You gave me an I think, but where are the multiple sources? And Fox Sports actually has Brady as well. Thanks. I forgot about them. Stop dodging. And Stockton’s argument does fall flat, because if a player like Tony Romo is higher than Montana it shows how unreliable it is. It’s a fact that the majority of the NFL world have Brady as the goat. We’re not saying he is the goat, but that’s where most place him so it’s a fact like it or not.

UTC)

@Mk8mlyb:Do you even know what vast majority means? I gave you a list of all these publications and you pick out a few guys from ONE of those publications that was a survey and that very publication came to the same conclusion that Brady was ranked the highest based on his level of support. This is getting sad. I asked you to give me respected publications that say he isn’t and you completely dodged that. I guess your research didn’t turn out well. I can respect the fact that you don’t think he is the greatest and that you don’t think we should put on there that Brady is considered the greatest, because there are those who disagree and it’s just going to cause problems but don’t act like the majority of the NFL world don’t have him ranked as the greatest.
The fact that Brady can't put up better numbers than Romo proves to me that Brady is not the GOAT. Passer rating is based on actual facts and Brady comes in at 4th and 14th, clearly not the GOAT.Jerry Stockton (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151: Whoa, someone got salty. Calm down, I didn't mean to insult you. My point is, it's not a clear consensus among anybody that anyone is the GOAT. Even the writers at ESPN had a very hard time debating who was number 1. The mere subject is divisive, and that's why Wikipedia has no right to declare Brady the GOAT. I never dodged anything. I gave you the sources, and they gave out true, credible information. Almost all of those sources were written by well-educated, well-informed NFL historians and people who know what they're talking about. Yes, many do consider Brady the GOAT. Many don't. And that's an undeniable fact. Simple. If Brady can't put up better numbers than Romo of all people, he's not the GOAT. I gave you my case as to why he isn't the GOAT, why Montana is the GOAT. I never said that Montana and Brady were perfect, although Montana nearly achieved that and so did Brady. And I'm still waiting for those Rodgers and Brees arguments. My problem isn't when sportswriters declare Brady the GOAT, it's when Wikipedia declares Brady the GOAT, which it has no right to do. And there is no quantifiable "majority" to rank this, there's just a bunch of differing opinions. Wikipedia can't declare who is the greatest, but it can say who is among the greatest. Why? Think the Smash Bros. tier lists--there's no true agreement on who's the best fighter. That constantly changes between tier lists for obvious reasons, such as the metagame, styles, players switching to different characters, and nerfs and buffs to different characters, as well as how they perform in tournaments. But what tends to stay the same is who is among the best fighters, that is, those in the top tier and to a lesser extent, high tiers. It's the same thing here--when we say "he is considered among the greatest", we're essentially saying that "many consider this guy the GOAT" and that they are essentially in that top tier of QBs who have been considered the GOAT by numerous respected people. Seriously, it's time to change it back to the original version. The mere fact that there's so much debate about this and no clear consensus doesn't warrant Brady being declared the GOAT. I get it, he's got stats, he's a legend, and many of the writers call him the GOAT. That doesn't make anything final. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: Are you trying to be funny or something? Or are you just making things up so you can keep dodging? If you don’t have anything just admit it. Where are these sources you gave me, because they aren’t showing up on my page? I know you’re not talking about the guys you mentioned in one survey because you can’t be serious if you think that compares. Bmorrow151 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jerry Stockton: Stop embarrassing yourself. By your logic Alex Smith is better than Joe Montana in the playoffs.
@Bmorrow151: sigh Really? Now you're screwing with me. I'm not applying for funny school right now. I'm being serious. Look at the survey and you'll see it was very divided. Many different QBs were ranked #1 by different people, and I've already listed the sources above this mini-section. I haven't made anything up, nor am I trying to. You're just trying to impose Brady as the GOAT, are you? Because there's no agreement on that and the mere thing is very divisive. Wikipedia's goal is to promote facts, and the only fact that's absolutely certain is that Brady is among the greatest of all time. That's it. Anything above is too controversial and shouldn't be ignited. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

not. not.

@Mk8mlyb: Thank you. I needed that laugh. Niners Noise. You actually put up a website for the 49ers and something called Belly Up Sports are you joking? You think those are respectable publications? I give you Sports Illustrated and you’re talking about Belly Up. Alright. Have a good one. I should have known this was a joke. Bmorrow151 (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151: You think any Patriots websites are any better? Give credit to the 49ers website for actually arguing in good detail about why Montana is the GOAT, and even then, they gave Brady a lot of respect. Hey, if any source puts up credible information that can be confirmed, it's up for grabs. Every source I put on there has just that. Don't make the mistake of pulling an ad hominem. Come on, quit acting like this is a joke. And you didn't actually think a Patriots website would do any better, right? You're not even bothering to answer any of my points. Now who's dodging? Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Guys, this is getting rather far afield. Remember WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:NPOV. Mostly, remember that the talk page is about how to improve the article, not about debating favorite/unfavorite sports figures. Brady is a polarizing figure, our task is to figure out how to document what's written about him without injecting our personal biases into the equation. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

How should we do that? If he's that polarizing, then why aren't we going for the safest option, which is the original version? That does nothing to discredit Brady in any way, it simply says he is among the greatest QBs of all time. That's all the article needs. Declaring anyone to be the GOAT isn't neutral point of view. Let's just go back to the original version and accept that regardless of what we think, he is a legend and deserves to be respected. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: No I don’t think a Patriot’s website would be better. That’s why I didn’t list the countless ones that are out there. Unlike you I would never consider a website for a team a respectable source for something like this. I guess you didn’t understand that part. Tarl N. is right. This has gotten way off topic especially with you trying to make this a debate on if Brady is the greatest by bringing up numbers and playoff performances. And I shouldn’t have even responded to it. It’s still a fact that most RESPECTED sources consider Brady to be the greatest. However, there are too many haters out there who don’t want to accept that. So, this is never going to stop if it’s on there. Bmorrow151 (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151: Once again, there is no "majority" or "most" in this case. And don't blame everything on me. Sure, I haven't exactly been on my best behavior and I'm a major reason this thing won't stop, but this isn't wholly my fault. I made my case as to why Brady isn't the greatest, why Montana is, and the numerous sources that say that Montana, Manning, and other QBs are the GOAT. The point is, every website says that Brady is among the legends of players that have played QB, but no "majority" has declared him the GOAT. And even if there is a majority, you're mistaking it as some sort of non-debatable, end-of-story thing, when it's anything but that. The brutal truth is, there is no answer as to who the greatest QB of all time is, so we have no right to declare Brady the GOAT, no matter what. Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: do you honestly believe a 49ers fan website and websites with names like Belly Up Sports compares to the respected sources I gave you on the topic? All you’re doing is showing how hard it is to find respected sources that still consider others the greatest. You had to go all the way to a website for Monta’s own team. It’s a fact that the majority of the most respected publications all say Brady is the goat. If not why can’t you find a good number that say he isn’t? It should be easy. Instead you want to go to an unknown website. I could do the same and find ones that say the Earth is flat. That’s why I’m talking about the ones with established credibility. Nobody is saying all fans say he is the greatest but the majority of the media does and proof of that is that almost every respected publication says he is. If somebody is new to sports why is it an issue telling them where most in the media place him among the greats? If you guys want to say it’s not good because it will attract vandalism and constant debates like this I can understand. But don’t try to act like it isn’t an accurate statement. That’s my only issue with all of this. No matter how much you disagree you will be hard pressed to find as many respected publications saying Brady isn’t the goat as you can saying he is.Bmorrow151 (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151: God DAMN it, you missed my point again! Stop saying "majority" or "most". There is no "majority" here! What's so hard to understand about that? The only reason there are so many websites proclaiming Brady as the GOAT is because of WP:RECENTISM. There's too much hype on the guy, so of course, it's easy to find people saying he's the GOAT. That doesn't really mean he's the GOAT. Especially not on Wikipedia. In theory, you're only saying, "many consider him to be the greatest". In practice, however, you're actually saying, "it's a fact, Brady's the GOAT, end of story, no argument or debate about it". Nothing about that statement is true. There's way too much hype surrounding Brady and the Pats, so it's gonna be hard to find sources that say other QBs are the GOAT. The mere fact that I have many sources that say that other QBs are the GOAT should send an alarm message to you that there is way too much controversy involving Brady being the GOAT that we shouldn't be coming to conclusions based on different interpretations. Again, I've made my cases as to why Brady's not the GOAT, Montana is, and I've found many sources that say other QBs are the GOAT. So based on that, do we really have the right to declare Brady the GOAT? Absolutely not. Would you at least answer to that? And if somebody's new to sports, when they see Wikipedia proclaim Brady as among the greatest QBs of all time, they'll automatically know that this is someone they should absolutely know about. The original version is enough. Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: Wow! People with that kind of attitude problem and obvious hatred shouldn’t even be debating this. Everybody else on here is being reasonable and you’re sitting here swearing about the subject. It’s obvious how deep your hatred for Brady goes. So you’re admitting that the majority of respected publications are saying Brady is the greatest but now it’s just because of recentism even though it’s not going to change. Okay whatever. It’s clear that no matter how many people said Brady is the greatest you’d still have a problem with it so stop acting like that’s the issue. It’s obvious there are too many fans out there with immense hatred for Brady like Mk8mlyb for it to state facts. The mere mention of Brady being the goat seems to make some people’s skin boil. Like I said I have no issue with the argument that things like this shouldn’t be on Wikipedia because of the effect it has on people. Mk8mlyb is an example of how crazy it drives people and it’s not going to stop even if the majority of the respected media do have Brady as the greatest and you have to reach to 49ers websites and Belly Up Sports to find ones that don’t.Bmorrow151 (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151: You're still continuing to miss my points. That's my problem here. What do you not understand? There is no "majority" here. And why are you acting all smug, like you're any better than me. Yes, I'm not happy. Yes, I've been a bit on edge. But you're not exactly being reasonable here. Brady being the GOAT is not fact. It only looks like that because of the recent hype surrounding Brady here. @Tarl N states my problems perfectly. I don't really hate Brady. I just don't like it when people get consumed by the hype and think Wikipedia has the right to call Brady the GOAT. We don't. Simple. And if you don't like those two sources, keep looking at my other ones. I've got plenty to spare. But would you quit attacking me, please? Read through my cases for Montana and against Brady again. The point is, many don't consider Brady the GOAT. So Wikipedia has no right to. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb:I don’t know why you’re having such a hard time understanding this. Where is anybody saying we should state that Brady is the goat? Please tell me. Nobody here is saying that. We are saying we should report how Brady is viewed by a significant portion of the NFL world which is just stating a fact. Of course we can’t state Brady is the greatest, but we can state he is viewed by a significant number as the greatest. Therefore your arguments of why Montana is the greatest is pointless. It doesn’t matter, because we aren’t stating Brady is the greatest. We’re saying he is viewed as such which is true. If you want to have a Joe Montana vs Brady debate for fun I’m all for that, but you’ll lose. Bmorrow151 (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151: A significant portion of the NFL world also views Montana as the greatest. A significant portion also views Manning as the greatest, and so on and so forth. If I can make a case for these QBs as the greatest, then anybody can. Montana and Brady have the regular season and the playoff stats and Super Bowls, but played in different eras and had excellent supporting casts. Manning created the passing era, has the regular season MVPs and stats, but only has a mediocre playoff record (14-13) and two Super Bowl victories, and took many different teams to Super Bowls, but had mediocre supporting casts. Marino put up monster stats in the same era as Montana, but suffered from bad supporting casts, a mediocre playoff record (8-10), and no Super Bowl. Otto Graham took his team to the NFL Championship Game every year, but played in a smaller league. Johnny Unitas set records for passing and revolutionized the passing game, but played in a smaller league and only has two championships. And yes, we are stating Brady is the greatest in practice. That's my point--in practice. I don't care about this "in theory" stuff because it's what we say in practice that matters. In practice, we are calling Brady the GOAT. That is not acceptable, at least not for the quarterbacks. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb:You say a significant portion consider Montana the greatest but you can’t even give me respectable sources. Just for fun here are a few issues I have with Montana. You bring up Brady’s defenses but Montana had a top ranked defense for almost his whole career. 3 of Montana’s Super Bowl runs his defense gave up an average of 9 points throughout the playoffs. Tell me how many quarterbacks do you think could have won with that average in 3 tries. And outside of 1981 Montana won ONE playoff game where his defense gave up more than 16 points so don’t try to bring defense up. And you say Eli and Nick Foles beat Brady, but this might surprise you but quarterbacks play the other team’s defense not each other. Did Brady play on defense I can’t remember? Montana won half his Super Bowls with the greatest receiver ever and Brady won 5 out of 6 without even a Pro Bowl receiver and won 4 out of 6 without Gronk. What receiver has Brady had that went on to win a Super Bowl as a starter with another quarterback because Jerry and the 49ers won without Montana. Montana actually scored 3 points in more than one playoff game.Bmorrow151 (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151: If you don't agree with me, go see @Tarl N.: because I agree with everything he says. I didn't intend to create a debate on whether Montana or Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time--the point I'm trying to get across is that there is a HUGE debate on who is the greatest. To me, everything about Montana's case says he is the greatest, but I recognize Brady has his supporters. But anyway, if QBs play each other's defenses, then why are we giving Brady credit for winning six Super Bowls again? He still had three gift-wrapped to him on a silver platter. And even if Montana's defenses were great, Brady's always had among the best defenses in the NFL. But that's not the point--the point is, Montana and Brady both have equally good cases to be the greatest, so Brady does not deserve any leeway no matter how big his hype train is. And can you try to calm down? I don't mean to insult or brag. Let's show some manners here, even if it's only some. Here, have a look at Brady's defenses: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Brady's defenses have allowed an average of 297 points per season. In the passing era and in a joke AFC. Eli Manning outplayed him in the Super Bowl--twice. Nick Foles did it in 2017. If you don't believe me, look at their stats here: 2007, 2011, and 2017. Combined margin of victory for Montana's Super Bowl victories was +76. Brady's margin is +19. In Montana's '81 playoff run, he scored an average of 30.6 points. In '84 and '88, he scored 27.3 points on average. For '89, he averaged 42 points. He also led the 49ers to a near-undefeated season without Rice. Also, Brady threw three interceptions in 2009 against the Ravens and scored just 13 points against the Broncos in 2005. Also, his receiving corps consists of Edelman and Branch, both Super Bowl MVPs and Pro-Bowlers, and Gronk, one of the best tight ends in NFL history and a five-time Pro-Bowler. Wes Welker took part in the fun show that is the 2013 Denver Broncos, who had one of the greatest offenses in NFL history. The Patriots went 11-5 without Brady in 2008, and Matt Cassel put up Tom Brady-like stats. Wikipedia can't call any QB the GOAT. There's just too much debate on this. Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2001/opp.htm
  2. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2002/opp.htm
  3. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2003/opp.htm
  4. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2004/opp.htm
  5. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2005/opp.htm
  6. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2006/opp.htm
  7. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2007/opp.htm
  8. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2008/opp.htm
  9. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2009/opp.htm
  10. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2010/opp.htm
  11. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2011/opp.htm
  12. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2012/opp.htm
  13. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2013/opp.htm
  14. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2014/opp.htm
  15. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2015/opp.htm
  16. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/opp.htm
  17. ^ https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/opp.htm

Issues with current wording

The lead currently states that "he is considered by many sports analysts to be the greatest quarterback of all time. Wikipedia is not saying that he is unconditionally the greatest. It is saying that many consider him to be. Thus, Wikipedia is not stating it's own opinion, it's stating a supposed fact about what others think. Is the issue that some have that:

  1. Many people do not believe he is the greatest? If not, is it fair to say that some believe it?
  2. Joe Montana's lead does not have similiar wording about some/many considering him the geatest?
  3. The lead should not state facts about an opinion help by a general set up of people?
  4. Other?

—Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue I have is that we are reporting what we don't have a cite for. We have many individual cites of writers arguing that he's the greatest. We don't have a cite that many consider him the greatest. Granted, that's a fine point to worry about.
The phraseology is put in such a way to imply that it's a done deal, readers will tend to interpret "many" as "most", and that sports writers consider him the greatest, period. I think that's inaccurate, and indeed, I'm not convinced that even all of those who wrote articles arguing he's the greatest, would consider him the greatest when doing a historical analysis. We have all those cites, but we would not see any pieces arguing for other QBs, because they were written at a time when publishers wanted hype after a Superbowl. During the season, I heard commentators stating that even among currently active players, Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson are better QBs, just haven't had the support cast (team, coach) that Brady did. But in a google search, those comments are drowned out by the hype.
The statement smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
We don't have a cite that many consider him the greatest. Granted, that's a fine point to worry about.: Agreed. I'm not personaly in a hurry to contest it as I believe it is a fair statement. It's good to understand if others are contesting it because they do not believe it, or if they are pre-emptively addressing the lesser of WP:V about material that is "likely to be challenged" in the future.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
many vs. most: Do you have an alternative wording in mind?—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Rodgers and esp. Wilson would be minority viewpoints. At any rate, even Montana would not necessarily be mentioned in Brady's lead, but should definitely be in some "Legacy" section that more thoroughly analyzes this.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: My issue is precisely everything you have stated. Many people don't believe Brady is the GOAT, Montana's article does not have similar wording, even though it's a fact that many do consider Montana the GOAT, myself included, and the lead should not state facts about opinions held by one set of people. It's widely held that the debate for the greatest QB of all time comes down to Montana and Brady, with Manning and another QB possibly in the mix. Notice what I said there: widely. That may be the most common opinion, but that doesn't make it fact, and even more, that's the closest anyone has truly gotten to declaring the greatest QB of all time. I don't see anyone going on Montana's article proclaiming him as the GOAT. Don't get me wrong, when I go on to Brady's article and read "many consider Brady to be among the greatest QBs of all time", I and other viewers will immediately understand that this guy's a legend who many proclaim as the GOAT. When we try to declare him the GOAT, however, we're entering very controversial, polarizing, and divisive territory that Wikipedia shouldn't state as fact. Meanwhile, I will continue to agree with @Tarl N's opinions. Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The state of Montana's article should not necessarily limit Brady's. The bigger question is more does it belong in any article? If the answer is yes, there is no reason WP:NPOV text cannot be added to Montana's lead too.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Many people don't believe Brady is the GOAT: But the current wording allows that, saying only that many believe Brady is the greatest.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Do you have an alternative wording in mind? Perhaps "A number of articles have been written arguing for Brady as the greatest QB of all time"? We do have a cite (the five-thirty-eight piece) saying essentially that. By using "articles" (rather than persons) we avoid the pitfall of ascribing positions to authors writing in the heat of the moment. Further, looking at the articles in question, they are presented as arguments, expecting disagreement. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: What you are saying only applies in theory. That's not it goes in practice. In practice, we're calling Brady the GOAT. The only way I will accept this is if all the other QBs get the same treatment, which would cause massive problems. So we should just go with the original version. Your version is not WP:NPOV because it makes interpretations and only shows one side of the story. My point is, the original version already satisfies everything you've been arguing for. To declare Brady the GOAT would only cause unneccesary problems and raise controversy that Wikipedia isn't supposed to handle. (I'm not mad here, just had to make my point clear.) Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Your version is not WP:NPOV ...: I wouln't go so far as saying it's "my version", I reverted one edit because the edit summary stated Wikipedia was calling him the GOAT, when it wasn't. That's been the extent of my editing.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: I like your article idea. I don’t see an issue with that and it’s definitely accurate. Bmorrow151 (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: and @Bagumba: To make things clear, I don't hate Brady. To the contrary, I have a lot of respect for the guy. I'm just very concerned that the massive hype train surrounding Brady is going too far. To make things a bit simple, I'll just bullet-list my problems and case here:
  • Montana is perfect in Super Bowls, Brady is not
  • Montana has no interceptions in Super Bowls (21 in playoffs), Brady has five (31 in playoffs)
  • Brady had about three Super Bowls gift-wrapped to him, Montana did not
  • Brady's defenses have always been among the best in the NFL, Montana's were not as good
  • Montana has higher passer rating in playoffs and three Super Bowl MVPs
  • Montana won four Super Bowls in faster time, dominated a dynasty-level NFC, and played in very brutal era of football
  • Brady lost to inferior competition--Eli Manning became a legend by beating Brady twice in Super Bowl, Joe Flacco outplayed him in 2012 and 2011 AFC Championship Games, and Mark Sanchez beat him in Divisional Round; Montana outplayed Ken Anderson, Dan Marino, and Boomer Esiason in years they were league MVPs
  • Montana nearly led 49ers to perfect season without Jerry Rice
  • basically everything that @Tarl N.: says
  • widely held that debate for greatest QB comes down to Montana and Brady; closest anyone has truly gotten to declaring greatest QB (remember, that's not fact)

The mere fact I have a good case for Montana still being the GOAT, as well as the many sources that argue for other QBs should make one wonder if we should call Brady the GOAT. Remember, that's what we're doing in practice, which is what matters in the end. If I've acted out of turn or insulted anyone at any time, my bad. I'm really sorry. I don't know if I should agree with @Tarl N.:'s compromise, since any mention of anyone being called the GOAT on Wikipedia is not something I want to agree to--I can make a case for any QB, like Manning, Favre, Marino, Unitas, and Graham as the greatest QB of all time. I haven't gone on Montana's article saying he's the GOAT, have I? When we say, "[insert quarterback] is considered one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time", we are essentially putting a tag on this guy, saying, "many people have called this guy the greatest quarterback of all time". They're essentially in that exclusive top tier of QBs who have been called the GOAT by many people. And let's face it, that's all we need. The original version sufficiently states where Brady places among the quarterbacks in the NFL. It's up to the readers to decide who they consider the GOAT, not Wikipedia. Every YouTube video or other discussion website on this subject is filled with massive debate on who is the GOAT, so any clear consensus is just an illusion. So we really should just stick with the original version. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A fundamental disagreement is that you believe Wikipedia is calling Brady the GOAT, as opposed to Wikipedia saying that people call him the GOAT. Facts about opinion are fine per guideline WP:YESPOV: Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.. It's not an editor's place to analyze who they personally believe is the greatest. Personally, I think there are too many variables that make it difficult to compare across eras. However, I recognize that that's not a big factor in the majority opinion. It's not our job to analyze exactly what they think, it's our job to capture the major views.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Montana and Brady being the greatest are both major views. Same thing goes for Manning and the other quarterbacks. Calling Brady the GOAT only presents one major side of this massive debate, which WP:YESPOV does not talk about. If it's a legitimate debate, then it's a big no. Have you carefully looked at my bullet points? Just curious. I just want to know you're not ignoring that. A major case in my favor is the Jerry Rice article. Ladies and gentlemen, this player is heralded by many as the greatest NFL player ever, yet he is only considered to be "one of" the greatest wide receivers according to Wikipedia. If Jerry Rice gets that treatment, then Tom Brady should not be called the greatest in any form. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Re: Rice, think WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Because another article has problems does not require another article to go down the same wrong path. Better to be inconsistently good than consistently bad.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Have you carefully looked at my bullet points?: I did. And my response was that it's Wikipedia's job to describe the majority view, not to give WP:UNDUE weight to them beause of minority views we feel are being ignored (see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS).—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: That's where you're wrong. The majority view is not Brady being the GOAT! There is no "majority". There is a significant portion of people who agree with me about Montana being the greatest, and same goes for the others. There's no majority, plain and simple. Montana being the greatest is not a minority view in any way. And again, there's way too much debate for Wikipedia to declare Brady the greatest in any way. Once again, there is too much debate for one QB to be definitively called the GOAT. The original version already satisfies your concern about new readers. In fact, calling Brady the GOAT is what caused the mess in the first place. Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Also, I have a major question to ask you: what's wrong with the original version? (Once again, I didn't have a highlighter.) The original version satisfies what your problems are--it already makes clear Brady's position among the quarterbacks in the NFL, but unlike the version you want, it doesn't make controversial interpretations or assume anything. Yes, there are sources who say Brady is the GOAT, but there are also sources who say other QBs are GOAT. I think we're blowing up a simple issue into something else by trying to declare Brady the GOAT in practice. Just keep the tag ("among the greatest") on all QBs who've been called the greatest by various sources and the viewers will understand what Wikipedia is talking about. My problem isn't when sportswriters declare Brady the GOAT, it's when Wikipedia calls Brady the GOAT. You're not a bandwagoner, are you? Good. Mk8mlyb (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: Please dial it back. You pinged me, and I had to walk through a dozen edits you made today alone to figure out which one pinged me. Please read WP:WALLOFTEXT. At this point, nobody is bothering to read any of this massive argument. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Fundamental disagreement ... it's when Wikipedia calls Brady the GOAT You believe Wikipedia is stating a fact that he is the greatest. Others disagree, seeing it as Wikipedia stating a fact that many have the opinion that he is the greatest. There's probably not much else to discuss with you on that matter. Otherwise, it's WP:WABBITSEASON.—Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
among the greatest: Dan Fouts is among the greatest. He's generally not called the greatest. Tom Brady and Joe Montana have frequently been called the greatest. That's the difference.—Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Everything you say also applies to Montana and Manning. And yes, when Wikipedia says "many consider him to be the greatest", we are calling Brady the GOAT in practice. And when I say "among the greatest", I mean to say, "many have called this guy the greatest". That's where we disagree. You think the "in theory" version you promote is okay, but I argue that it's how it's perceived in practice that's what matters. And "wabbit season"? When did Wikipedia decide to imitate Looney Tunes? :) Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: You have an issue with that wording as well. I’m shocked. You obviously don’t care about facts. You proved that already with your Montana argument. I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but Montana’s defense was ranked higher than Brady’s for a lot of his career. Most years it was top 3. And you conveniently dodged how much better his defense was in the playoffs. When did Brady’s defense average giving up 9 points in the postseason, because Montana’s did it for 3 of his Super Bowls? And explain why Montana had such a hard time beating teams who scored more than 16 points. And you’re giving me Branch who never scored more than 4 touchdowns for the Patriots or made a Pro Bowl and you’re comparing that to having Jerry Rice who averaged giving Montana 15 touchdowns? And why did Montana have so many more all pros and Pro Bowlers for most of his career? And you’re talking about the Patriots did when Brady missed a season going 11-5, but you failed to mention the 49ers went 10-6 when Montana was injured and won a Super Bowl when they got rid of him. You might not know this, but it’s also easier putting up big numbers when you have more help and your defense is constantly giving you the ball.Bmorrow151 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151: If I didn't care about facts, I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of trying as hard as I did to get the resources I did or explain myself as much. And by the way, the 49ers went just 10-6 in 1991 and missed the playoffs when Montana was out for the whole season. Deion Branch is a Super Bowl MVP and was part of the Seahawks playoff teams in 2006 and 2010. And he wasn't the only one. Edelman, Gronk, and Welker are all elite at their positions. Brady's defenses, well, they tended to come up with elite performances all the time in the playoffs. 2004 vs the Colts? They averaged 16.3 points in 2007. 17 points was the mark in 2011. Brady's average scoring was 22 in 2007 (he threw three interceptions against the Chargers and scored just 14 points in the Super Bowl). For comparison, Montana averaged 30.6, 23.5, 27.3, 27.3, and 42 points in the postseason. Also, see [25]. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: I can see you have no real response since you won’t answer any of my questions. It’s okay I know it’s hard. I was shocked when I realized how easy Montana has had it as well. I mean who wouldn’t want a defense that only gives up an average of 9 points through your Super Bowl winning postseasons. And what defense can you have when a quarterback routinely fails to win if his defense gives up more than 16 points? The man had Jerry Rice and countless Pro Bowlers and only made the Super Bowl 4 times. And you said the 49ers went just 10-6 and missed the playoffs but that’s almost exactly what the Patriots did so what’s your point? The Patriots actually had a bigger drop without Brady because they went from 16-0 to 11-5 vs 14-2 to 10-6. I know this isn’t supposed to be a debate on who’s greater but I have a hard time sitting silent while you leave out important facts about how much help Montana really had and needed. I’d love to see him beat a team that scored 41 points in the playoffs. He could barely win if they scored 17.Bmorrow151 (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bmorrow151: I did. You just can't see that. And Jerry Rice was Montana's only notable receiver. Dwight Clark and the others were good, but didn't match anywhere near Rice's level. Brady's receivers have always been above-average or better. And you completely misread the Patriots in 2008--they performed like Super Bowl contenders without Brady. Of course they would have a bigger drop, they just went 16-0. And also, Montana won 1983 Divisional Playoffs and Super Bowls XVI, XIX, and XXIII, and the entire 1981 49ers playoff run, they gave up at least 21 points each game, 24 on average. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Specifics about current wording

Current wording: ..., he is considered by many sports analysts to be the greatest quarterback of all time. (Note, this wording comes from ignoring WP:BRD, resulting in a change without consensus).

Problems:

  • "Many sports analysts" - will in general be read as "most sports analysts".
  • "consider" - present tense. Even leaving aside my cynicism about whether the original articles reflected the writers' actual feelings, we document the past, not the present (because people and circumstances change). E.g., see {{As of}}.
  • Lack of specific cite. We are inferring what many sports analysts consider by seeing the results of google searches. We don't have any kind of quantified proportion (does "many" mean a few dozen? most of the football analysts? most of the sports reporting corps?)
  • WP:RECENTISM. At least some of the articles we're quoting are the result of post-victory hype.

Possible replacement wording: ..., a number of sports analysts have argued that he is the greatest QB of all time. Alternatives:

  • Replace argued with written articles saying.
  • Replace that he is with should be considered.
  • Replace of all time with in NFL history.

I'd like to settle this without the debates about whether he deserves the accolade or not. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding citations, I agree. I'll try to post some within the next day or two that refer to "many" or at least "some".—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Do we want to deal with the issue of "consider"? They wrote it, whether they considered it or still do is another question. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I dont think think so. I'll filter sources from within the last few years, and there really haven't been any new recent developments to reasonably think his suport has lessened. At any rate, we can revisit this if needed once sources are identified.—Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not agree with the third bullet at all. That changes nothing. But the second bullet is something I MIGHT think about. Key word, MIGHT. I can't promise anything, but I will see about it. And plus, as I said before, the GOAT label could easily be on Montana's article as well, maybe Manning's article. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. That lets the readers know how far up analysts are willing to place him. Saying that he is among the greatest doesn’t let the reader know that a good number actually consider him the greatest. Players like Manning are considered among the greatest, but multiple respected analysts aren’t calling him the greatest. Hopefully it will be left alone. Some people seem to go crazy at even the mention of Brady being the greatest even though it’s a fact that numerous analysts have argued he is which is all we’re saying. Bmorrow151 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Here some sources that I found where the writers assess that many believe Brady is the greatest QB. These are not just all sports sources, but general sources as well:

  1. "While many considered Tom Brady the greatest quarterback of all time before Super Bowl LI, his epic comeback this past Sunday appeared to win over most of the remaining skeptics." ("Is Tom Brady the greatest NFL player of all time". NFL.com. February 9, 2017.)
  2. "To celebrate the 40th birthday of a quarterback many consider the GOAT ..." ("Patriots celebrate Tom Brady's 40th birthday with actual goats". Statesman Journal. August 3, 2017.)
  3. "While Joe Montana still gets some votes, Tom Brady is now generally considered the greatest quarterback in NFL history." "Drink water, avoid tomatoes, buy my stuff- Tom Brady's dubious fitness plan". San Francisco Chronicle. January 5, 2018.)
  4. "But Brady is already considered by many to be the greatest ever, ..." ("Ranking the Quarterbacks Who Have the Most to Gain From a Super Bowl Win". Sports Illustrated. January 10, 2019.)
  5. "Tom Brady is widely considered one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history, and rightfully so." ("Tom Brady doesn't think Tom Brady is one of the greatest QBs ever". CBS Sports. February 8, 2016.)
  6. "Quarterback Tom Brady is often called the G.O.A.T., or 'Greatest of All Time.'" ("Quarterbacks With the Most Super Bowl Wins". Sports Illustrated. February 3, 2019.)
  7. "With five Super Bowl rings in seven trips, and now a chance for a sixth ring to follow up what he engineered against Atlanta, Brady is already considered by most to be the greatest quarterback of all time." ("Tom Brady outdoes himself with AFC title comeback, turns Jaguars into Falcons". Sporting News. January 22, 2018.)
  8. "Maybe there's only one gift to give a player who's considered by many to be the "Greatest Of All Time" — some actual goats." ("What did you get Tom Brady for his 40th birthday?". Los Angeles Times. August 3, 2017.)
  9. "It wasn’t hard to find people referring to Tom Brady as the greatest quarterback of all time before Super Bowl LIII and becoming the first player to win a sixth Super Bowl isn’t likely to stop people from putting goat emojis next to his name on social media."("Tom Brady says being called "the G.O.A.T." makes him cringe". NBC Sports. February 5, 2019.)
  10. "Not only was it the start of the Patriots’ run of success, but that of the man now largely considered the greatest quarterback of all-time." ("Guregian: Patriots reflect on what makes Tom Brady the greatest". Boston Herald. February 4, 2018.)
  11. "His case for G.O.A.T. has been stated many times, and has convinced mostly everyone around football." ("Drew Brees, Not Tom Brady, Really Is the G.O.A.T." Complex. October 23, 2017.)
  12. "While the New England Patriots earned a promising 11-5 record this season, there has been much discussion around how long Brady — who many football fans consider the greatest quarterback of all-time ..." "Tom Brady on Why He Doesn't Trust People Off of the Football Field: 'I Don't Feel Protected'". People. January 11, 2019.)
  13. "Many now consider Tom Brady to be the greatest quarterback of all time." ("Why Tom Brady Doesn't Like Being Called the Greatest Quarterback of All Time". Oprah.com.)

—Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I drop my objection. There are indeed reliable sources which cite exactly what I didn't think we had a cite for. I am amused to note that at least one of them uses the statement to make the case that someone else (Brees) deserves the honour :-). Tarl N. (discuss) 19:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
WAIT! I still have a major objection to this thing. I already put together my sources, who say that the others are the GOAT, and again, I am not okay with Wikipedia calling any QB the GOAT. Yes, I know you have the sources, but still, only many consider Brady the GOAT. That doesn't necessarily mean most, let alone a "vast majority". And as @Tarl N. noted, even one of those sources states that Drew Brees deserves the honor of GOAT. So the idea that "most" people consider Brady the GOAT is a myth. How did @Bagumba:'s sources measure who the "majority" was? To me, every argument you say applies to Montana and Manning. So all this time, just why didn't we ever bother to put the GOAT label on their articles? I just can't stop thinking that way. And yes, saying Brady is among the greatest does let readers know where he places among the all-time great quarterbacks. Come on, it was already obvious enough to most people reading the article as to where Brady stands. I have seen many arguments that Manning is the greatest, by his various records, stats, MVP awards, playoff performances and Super Bowls. You guys remember when Manning was going to retire after the 2015 season, playing in Super Bowl 50 that many considered him as the greatest quarterback of all time just the same way everyone's hopping onto Brady? Yeah, those were good times. And as @Tarl N.: stated before, even among active QBs, Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson are considered better by many, but don't have the support cast to help them. Does that go away now that he's not objecting to anything? Remember, even if we all agree to this, we are taking a VERY HUGE leap that WILL be very controversial and that may be too much for Wikipedia to handle. Am I the only one still being bothered by an undeserved hype train? Please, do tell. Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The statement doesn't declare Brady the GOAT, it (will now) cite sources saying the majority considers that. I'd certainly prefer a more perfect study, but given there are multiple sources which we can cite where the articles say exactly what the statement does, we don't have a leg to stand on. If you can find cites that a majority consider Montana..., then we'd have a case where we have conflicting reliable sources (and we have procedures to deal with that). But the sources you gave earlier were on whether Montana deserved the accolade, not what the majority has concluded. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Am I the only one still being bothered by an undeserved hype train?: Apparently. And WP:WABBITSEASON.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, what?! This makes no sense! How do you think citing sources that say "many consider him to be the greatest" help anything here? Did you see the new arguments I presented? How is there a majority here, @Tarl N.:? This isn't some "no doubt about it, there's no debate" thing! If there was, you might have a good point, but I swear, I've seen huge communities argue for Montana as the greatest quarterback ever! We put the GOAT label on Lawrence Taylor and Jerry Rice because there wasn't any serious competition for them. But when it comes to the QB debate, there is! So what am I missing here? Please enlighten me. I don't like this "in theory" crap you guys are trying to sell. It's shady and makes me think there's a conspiracy going on under my nose. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: It's not about a majority here. It's about documenting that reliable sources say that a majority consider him the GOAT. Our opinions don't count - we summarize what others report. Since that is what's reported, it stays. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: How can you trust these reliable sources when they say a majority exists? They haven't counted anything. I'll only consider accepting this if that second bullet of yours at the top of this mini-section appears in the sentence. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: Read the reliable sources page. The sources themselves are considered reliable (e.g., SF Chronicle is not known as a fake news purveyor), and we don't require our sources to be as carefully cited as we require ourselves. As I said, I'd prefer a better study, but these are WP:RS. We accept it and publish our reference to it or them, allowing the reader to decide whether to believe any particular source. That's part of the reason we require sourcing - so people know where the statement comes from and can evaluate their reliability. If we were to quote the Boston Globe on such a comment, the reaction would highly derisive.
We do have procedures to deal with the situation of multiple reliable sources contradicting each other, but those don't apply here - we don't see sources directly contradicting the assertion. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: But the sources themselves haven't even counted anything. They didn't take a sample and ask people who the greatest QB of all time is, so how do they know there's a majority? They're probably just making assumptions, which makes your endeavors highly suspect. And what about that second bullet? That has to be on there. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The second bullet (present tense...) is one of the reasons why documenting evanescent accolades in the lede for active players is a problem. The sources are in present tense, but years from now, may sound silly. The only way to make it not vulnerable to aging would be to somehow date the assertion (like, by late in his career...), which would sound awkward in the lede - that level of detail is usually reserved for the body of the article. A few years from now, after recurring cycles of vandalism triggered by how polarizing a figure he is, that phraseology will sound off and get replaced. The general answer is that you win some, you lose some, and move on. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

EXACTLY! See people, this is why we don't jump on hype trains for active players, no matter how good they really are. No matter what, there will always be people who are unhappy about whatever label is placed on Brady's article. The original version keeps it safe and doesn't try jumping into uncharted territory. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: Per MOS:CURRENT, the guideline does not apply to "pages updated regularly". This is unlikely to be a problem for NFL bios, which already get too much WP:NOTDIARY minutiae activity. See FA Wayne Gretzky or GA Lionel Messi, which do not use past tense for similar claims. On the other hand, Britannica's past tense style gives the false impression that someone might have supplanted Gretzky.—Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"many sports analysts": The current wording says "he is considered by many sports analysts ...", but the sources above do not limit the opinion to sports analysts. His peers and former players have said the same. Non-sports sources People and the Oprah Winfrey Network have stated that "many" hold the opinion. The Ringer wrote in 2018: "Most fans would tell you that the quarterback GOAT is Tom Brady, who’s won five Super Bowl rings with the Patriots."[26] This is somewhat like the WP:INTEXT example of "According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening", which suggest only the Times believe this.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I'm not objecting at this point. I just think we're setting ourselves up for further churn in the next couple of years when he has a bad year. I don't think there is any way to gracefully date something like that in the lead, which means we're depending on continuous edits to deal with a changing situation. C'est la vie. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m shocked that Mk8mlyb still has a problem with this. He couldn’t even give me recent respected national publications that concluded somebody else was the goat. He had such a hard time he went to Montana’s own team websites and articles back to 2012 when Brady had half as many Super Bowls. If it’s that difficult to find ones that say Brady isn’t the goat it just goes to show that the majority of respected analysts and publications in the sports world have Brady as the greatest and saying many is definitely true. You want to put it in Montana’s article fine, but you definitely can’t say many respected analysts or publications when your sources are things like Belly Up Sports and Random nerds and Brady has things like Sports Illustrated, Pro Football Focus, FoxSports, ESPN, CBS Sports and multiple others all arguing that he is the goat. I don’t blame a diehard Montana fan being irked about it, but it’s a FACT that Brady is considered the goat by the majority of the respected members of the media. I have no problem with us saying many though to placate all of those who go crazy about that fact. It would be different if we were saying Brady is the goat but all we are doing is saying that many argue that he is. Saying Brady is among the greatest doesn’t show that many consider him the greatest. Steve Young is considered among the greatest by many but how many are actually arguing he is the greatest? Bmorrow151 (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, would you stop attacking me, please? Yes, I think Montana is the GOAT, but that has nothing to do with what we're dealing with here, because if you're curious, I have Brady at a close second. But if you don't believe me, read what the National Football League itself said here: [1] They put both Tom Brady and Joe Montana at number 1. And I like how you rag at me for not giving you any respected publications, when @Bagumba: literally said his sources didn't limit his opinion to sports analysts, listing magazines and the darn Times. And you've already heard my arguments about your "in theory" stuff. Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [24]
@Bagumba: Also, buddy, you haven't explained to me some very important things--namely, why didn't we ever put the "GOAT label" on Montana's article this whole time, or even consider doing that? Remember, it's a FACT that Montana is considered the GOAT by a significant portion of the public and the NFL and its audience, so why didn't we ever give him the honor of "being considered the greatest quarterback of all time"? I've made it clear that Montana vs Brady is still debatable, so if Brady is getting the honor of GOAT, why didn't Montana ever get that consideration, or even Manning, for crying out loud? If Montana vs Brady is still a thing, then everything you say should easily apply to Montana, and Manning to a lesser extent, shouldn't it? Why does Brady get this treatment? You're right, it's because the Patriots are relevant right now 'cause they make the postseason almost every year. In other words, the position you promote smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Of course, that's WP:WABBITSEASON, but still, that argument bears repeating. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
... why didn't we ever put the "GOAT label" on Montana's article this whole time ... WP:SOFIXIT. I'm guessing there has to be sources that he was widely considered the greatest until Brady entered the conversation.—Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No matter what the topic is, labeling someone as the greatest of all time, or “GOAT” is an extremely difficult argument to make. So many factors go into making someone great that is hard to decipher how to rank them in a particular order. Personal opinions of players, like the ones that have been shared above, are also restraints of determining who can be considered “the greatest”. When it comes to biases based on these team or player preferences, people like to believe that they are going to be correct in the terms of this title. When it comes to Tom Brady in particular, these opinions are heavily weighted on both sides of the fan-to-hater spectrum. First of all, Brady has been the focus of a few scandals throughout his career, most famously “deflate gate”. This particular scandal hit Tom Brady’s reputation extremely hard giving him a lot of negative attention and raising doubts about his true athletic abilities. Despite this hit on both his personal and professional reputation, Tom has still proven his superior athletic abilities ranking him as one of if not THE greatest quarterback of all time. This is proven through hard statistics. According to the Pro Football Reference, Brady holds more records than any other quarterback in history. These records include but are not limited to most games won by a quarterback (237), most Super Bowl wins (6) and most Super Bowl MVP awards (4). He is also recognized as the oldest quarterback to win a Super Bowl (41) and Super Bowl MVP award (39) proving that his age is not affecting his athletic ability. While these records prove him to be one of the greatest players on the field, Brady also proves himself to be an excellent player off the field. In my opinion, the criteria to be the greatest requires this off the field persona as well. Brady has participated in multiple philanthropic events and programs. One program that he finds to be extremely important is the Best Buddies International program that focuses on enhancing the lives of people with mental disabilities. Through his participation, these people that face difficulties that many of us cannot even imagine, are able to create lasting friendships and find opportunities for employment. While we all have our opinions on him, it is clear to me that based on his career on and off the field, Brady has proven himself worthy of the greatest player of all time title. Laurenmerrow (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC) {reftalk}}

I too have an issue with the wording at the end of the first paragraph. It's impossible for an open/shut debate regarding QB greatness due to a myriad of factors (era (today's numbers are inflated), team support (let's be real, no one has had more team support than Brady), statistics (which, of course, can be misleading), etc.) and because of that there are multiple quarterbacks with a reasonable argument for GOAT. You look at the articles for other GOAT candidates and it will specify that they are considered among the greatest. At least have some consistency, you look at soccer articles regarding Pele, Maradona, Messi, Ronaldo and they all say that they are regarded as one of the greatest of all time - there were instances in the past where it was a little more direct, like the Brady article in it's current iteration, but thankfully that is no longer the case. Even Michael Jordan's wiki, who has a far stronger case for GOAT at his profession than Brady due to the 5 on 5, two-way nature of the sport of basketball, has "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player off all time" from an old NBA.Com article written over a decade ago, and even that's stretching what should be acceptable for this wiki. I expect better— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.149.24.115 (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to co-sign the above comments requesting a change in the current page. When I visited this page a year or two ago it said something along the lines of "one of the greatest" and that is how it should be displayed. I am not concerned with what most publications say when there is no clear "best ever" especially when many of these are "in the moment" talks. It's foolish wording on Wikipedia's part, at least mention in other contenders for the GOAT QB title that they are "regarded by some as the greatest QB of all-time" to at least provide some consistency. But ultimately the way this article was worded beforehand would be the best way to rectify this. The way it was worded on April 5th is how it should be worded and it's strange as to why it would change, if there was a time to change it that time would have been shortly after the SB but even that would have been the incorrect decision to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.149.29.32 (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I want to co-sign the above comments ...: FWIW, both IP comments appear to be from Tennessee Technological University.—Bagumba (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I am originally from San Francisco and a die hard 49er fan so in no way am I objective. However, I am most definitely not a fan of Brady or the Patriots. That being said, his accomplishments are amazing. I definitely think one could objectively say he is the most accomplished quarterback in NFL history and great. His ability in clutch moments and under pressure is also fantastic, though to what extant a Wikipedia page can say that, I'm not sure. Here are the issues with saying he's the greatest though. Football is far from being an individual sport and although he deserves credit, so do his teammates and coaches. There is no way to truly objectively compare eras in sports. Defensive players can barely hit QB's now compared to pre 2000. Who knows what those QB's would accomplish with today's rules or how much longer their careers would be. Plus we can always get into conversations about the fake tuck rule and such. In the end saying analysts have called him the greatest seems ok though. However, if it is, then of course it's ok to put on other pages as long as it's sourced which could be a slippery slope. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It would make more sense for his season to season break down to be statistical and reflecting of the teams overall performance together. The allegations are numerous enough to warrant a controversy drop bar speed are of his season by season accolades. TC8907 (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Debate about the greatest QB

Okay, I wanted to ask this question for a long time: how many of you actually think the debate is over? Because 1) it's not, and 2) I have a suspicious feeling that the whole "debate is over" thing has gone too far, and that's why people are trying to keep the last sentence of the first page the way it is. We're talking about the greatest quarterback of all time here, that's a debate that's never going to stop. Sure, Brady has more records than any other quarterback in history, but so did Johnny Unitas and Joe Montana when they retired. Peyton Manning did too. The point is, any one of them can still be the greatest QB of all time. So why are people so eager to use the whole "considered by many to be the greatest" argument now when they had the opportunity before? Why didn't anyone use this argument for Montana? The only reason I can think of is because the hype machine has finally crossed the wrong line. Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

We write about the common viewpoints that exist now. If the general opinion of reliable sources change, then consensus can change here too. Do you have new evidence to consider?—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what new evidence we can gather. We've pretty much exhausted every last statement of evidence we can find here. The only question is how we interpret it. But still, I have a few questions to ask you. Number one, do you think the debate is over? I just want to know. Number two, how long has Joe Montana's article been on the wiki? The common viewpoints then were that Montana and Manning were the best! Actually, let me go even further: the common viewpoints before Super Bowl 51 were that Montana, Brady, and Manning were the GOATs. After Super Bowl 51, more people said Brady was the GOAT, but there were still valid arguments for Montana and the others. So the question becomes this: why now? Mk8mlyb (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This is simple. Brady is considered the GOAT per what reliable sources say now. End of story.--WaltCip (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Even now, reliable sources say that Montana is the GOAT, and again, this was never an issue before. So again: why now? You never stated this for Montana before. Mk8mlyb (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Why is Mk8mlyb even allowed to post here anymore? It's obvious he's just a Montana troll that's all b-hurt that the time continuum has gone on without them. The Brady Goat "debate" ended in 2007 which I believe has already been mentioned above by someone else along with numerous articles that supported such. This "debate" has been over for more than a decade now and it's only Mk8mlyb that has a problem with not being able to let it go, hoping that Montana will somehow come back to Goat'dom. It's over, he had his day, now it's time to move on. The reason things have changed is because TIME keeps moving. When a new GOAT appears (maybe that'll be Mahomes maybe it wont), then so will the consensus here change. But that wont be for a minimum of at least 20 years. Wikipedia isnt even 20 years old yet so items that take 20+ years to resolve themselves will ALWAYS have a "first" on Wikipedia. Montana was great. He was the GOAT..... up until 2007. When Montana can come back and post an undefeated season with record breaking everything and then follow that up by going 19 STRAIGHT years of having playoff appearances, then we can talk. The breadth of Brady's accomplishments span 20 years. Therefore, any "change" in Brady's Goat'dom will take at least another 20 years to change, if not more. Wikipedia was still finding it's way when Montana was considered "The goat". So there is no argument that can be made for why his page never displayed it. Stop living in 1989. This is 2020 and someone has surpassed Montana and it wasnt by just a little bit, it was utterly obliterated and it'll stay that way for decades to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.217.238 (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Number one, I'm not a Montana troll. I'm just trying to contribute and do things right. In fact, I love Brady and respect the hell out of him; he's my second favorite QB of all time, with Montana barely in third. Personally, I think him and Montana are two sides of the same coin and it's essentially a coin flip as to who's better and the greatest QB. But the fact is, 1) it's not about me, it's about what's best for the wiki, and 2) we're not supposed to say things like "this QB is the greatest" or even imply it on Wikipedia. That's not our job, that's the readers'. It's their job to make the choice as to who is the greatest QB. After all, the debate is never over. That's why it's a debate! I know the general consensus, and while it's correct and accurate most of the time, it's not 100 percent fact. If we try to say something to the lines of "Brady is considered the greatest" on Wikipedia, we're basically trying to silence the numerous people who think otherwise. Look at Peyton Manning's page and Aaron Rodgers' page as well. Drew Brees too. Why aren't they being "considered the greatest QB of all time" when it's arguable that they've accomplished as much as Brady has? I get it, many in the football world consider Brady the greatest, and it's a loud part, maybe even the majority. So if we want to say that him and the others are among the greatest QBs of all time, that's fine, because it establishes their position and how they stand among the NFL. But it's not our job to put one guy over everyone else just because they say so. If we do this, we are saying the debate is over and that no one is allowed to say otherwise. That's not something I'm okay with. Mk8mlyb (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

He just got signed to Tampa Bay about an hour ago. LilWiki777 (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@LilWiki777: Please see WP:RSBREAKING. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Current version

OK, show of hands, ladies and gentlemen. Who approves of the current version of the page that I put? Mk8mlyb (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Aw, come on! I thought that was a good compromise. And what do you mean by a s**tstorm? What's going to happen on March 18th? Look, I think leaving the article as it is is a really bad idea. Maybe we should look up some sources that call him one of the greatest players in NFL history? Mk8mlyb (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
On March 18th, his contract with the Patriots expires. At that point, this article is going to get lively. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I was off by a day... Tarl N. (discuss) 23:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It is A FACT that "Tom Brady is considered as one of the best quarterbacks". It is an opinion that "he is the best". Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. What we have right now is an opinion and not a fact. Mk8mlyb (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
No, what we have now is the fact that many consider him the best. Whether he's the best or not is not addressed in this article, but it is well-documented that many express that opinion. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
What's also a fact is that many consider Montana to be the best. And like I said, we should trust the readers to come to the conclusion of who is the best. Putting it on Wikipedia is a bad idea. And even still, the one I put gets the point across anyway. We know he's regarded as one of the greatest players in NFL history, so there's no harm in putting that. Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Tarl N., yes I agree with you. The question now is "Should we leave how it is, or, should we change it?" Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Mk8mlyb, yes I agree with what you said, however, I'd like to make a correction; right now we have a fact, not an opinion. In my view, this fact needs to be refrazed a bit. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Not Suitable for Wikipedia

I know there is this lengthy discussion about this above, but the line " Due to his numerous records and accolades, several sports writers, commentators, and players consider Brady to be the greatest quarterback of all time" is just not suitable for Wikipedia. That is pure opinion. Yes it may be the opinion by most people, but it is still pure opinion. There is no getting around that. The words "among the" MUST be added to this sentence. Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zdawg1029: Yeah, read that discussion before starting a new one. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
See WP:YESPOV. NPOV does not mean widely held opinions are not mentioned.—Bagumba (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Sigh, I was hoping you weren't going to say that. I have a life, no thank you.Zdawg1029 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
You know after rereading it, because the word "consider" is in there, I think it makes it okay. If it had said just straight "Tom Brady is the greatest QB of all time", then obviously that wouldn't be right, but because it is stating the opinion of many, I guess it's fine. So I retract my complaint. Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Brady/Archive_5&oldid=1142780511"