Talk:Dan Marino

This is now incorrect. It is true that Marino has the most PASSING yards in a season, but in 2004 Daunte Culpepper passed and rushed for a combined 5,123 yards. I'm changing it to "most passing yards in a season".

The final sentence in the first paragraph has taken many forms: the current one ("greatest pure passer;, my edit ("one of the greatest passers"), and the version just before that ("the greatest passer"). I think we should settle on the wording of this sentence once and for all, maybe even eliminating it.

And as I look further back in the history, perhaps the fairest first paragraph is the one revised at 00:44 on 9 August 2005.

Opinions on how this part of the article should read?

72.10.241.61 05:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say he's frequently hailed as the best pure passer ever to play. Maybe a better way of stating it would be: "arguably the best pure passer in pro football history". I also think that 'pure' emphasizes his throwing ability perfectly; it has been said many times that coaches throughout his career never tried to tamper with his natural mechanics. 152.163.101.8

Yeah, I was looking for a word to serve the purpose of "arguably;" I am uncomfortable with anything that seems to indicate a lack of debate.--72.10.241.61 01:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

maybe instead of "...and is widely recognized as one of the greatest quarterbacks in football history." we could go with something irrefutable:"He has held almost every meaningful NFL passing record and is the most prolific passer in NFL history." the stats bear this notion; maybe "prolific" is the bad word here. -Nod 23:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Words like "arguably" and "generally considered" should not be used at all. These are weasal words that ultimately make a claim that cannot be supported by fact. Opinions that can be argued should not be in an encyclopedia entry at all. Simply state the facts- something to the effect of: "Dan Marino set many passing records during his career." Now that is a statement that cannot be argued with. It is up to the reader to decide whether or not that makes Marino one of the greatest. RobS

Dan Marino is not widely considered the greatest quarterback in history. Joe Montana and Johnny Unitas receive at least as much recognition as the greatest quarterback in history.

Generally Marino's name comes first, there's just always an asterisk. Many people call him "statistically" the greatest QB of all time. --Mankind716 03:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Marino is in fact considered one of the best.

I concur with the second and third responders. Regarding his career, only Brett Favre's career numbers have begun to reach the accomolades of Marino(give Favre another year and he'll be ahead of Marino statistically and have some rings...). Joe Montana won either four or all five superbowls he played in, thus he is considered the Mr. Clutch or Big Game quarterback just like Jordan is recognized for his six rings and six Final MVPs. So those of us who value championships and team effort vote Montana the best, those of us who assert that your cumulative numbers should define the best pick Marino(until Favre's #'s overtake Marino's). Ultimately, many will say the best ever was Marino and many will say the best ever was Montana. Montana had a better team and a better coach: should that make a difference? I'd say Favre probably has the best hybrid of huge numbers and a decent amount of NFL jewelry. But that's until Payton Manning's or Tom Brady's numbers overtake theirs.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by UWh20m (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Between Brett Favre and Peyton Manning, a lot of these records are gone now... should they be left in with a note on when/who broke them? Don't think it would be right to outright remove them even if I'm not a big Marino fan... :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.42.128.28 (talk • contribs) .

I think I might have solved that problem with a slight change to the header. PJM 12:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I believe that we should at least add who broke them when they are broken. Brett Favre has already broken at least 4 records on here. I'm not saying that Marino's records are insignificant, but we should give credit where credit is due. 0cycoivan 11/01/06

sorry don't know where else to go but the first paragraph says he has a quick SEXUAL release & a powerful testis... some idiots trying to be funny

You must also consider the amount of time Favre has taken to break Marino's records. Marino had these records in far less time than it took Favre to do the same thing.

ESPN Classic's latest episode of their The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... series concerned the reasons why Dan Marino shouldn't be blamed for never winning a Super Bowl. This is basically the reason why the expand tag has just been added. User:TMC1982

" being ungraciously pushed out of Miami by new coach Dave Wannstedt "

That was in the phrase regarding his retirement, and while it is largely believed by many Dolphin fans (including me), it has no basis in fact. I changed it to : Before the 2000 season, Marino decided to retire, after declining offers from Minnesota and his hometown of Pittsburgh. The part I deleted had been after the first comma. Nanaharas 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I added his stated reason from his retirement press conference. Nanaharas 04:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I get it people, many of you don't like MArino, but to claim he didn't have a reason to exist at that point of time...

I'm not sure what the point of the following ELs is, so i've moved them here. Thoughts?

• Dan Marino Tribute Fansite: www.DanMarinoTribute.com
• [1]Dan Marino's quick release
• [2]Marino and FirstPlus Mortgage
• The Dan Marino Foundation

They don't seem to "pass" WP:EL. Jmfangio 09:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well it looks like I have found an article to work on. It seems that the FirstPlus article is used as a ref and that's all it should be used in. Jmfangio 10:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I put all of Marino's stats in table format. I could not find in any of the sources Dan's passer rating or longest completion for his playoff stats, so if anyone knows where to find those stats, either put them in or let me know, thanks!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The table format is much better, but the marker for Marino's remaining NFL record is all but invisible since it is aqua on aqua. Moretz (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a suggestion. I dont have the time to do it myself right now, but Dan Marino's college stats are available at totalfootballstats.com, if someone wants to add a table for those under "college career". Mugman17 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

These sentences were confusing - they read as if Marino himself kicked a field goal: Marino played college football at the University of Pittsburgh from the 1979 to the 1982 season. As a freshman in 1979, Marino led the Panthers in a 24-17 triumph over West Virginia in the Backyard Brawl with 252 yards and a field goal. Marino threw for 256 yards and also rushed for 40 yards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.241.48 (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're right, and he didn't kick a field goal. I've simplified the paragraph.  Frank  |  talk  15:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've removed some content a couple of times now as non-encyclopedic; it was most recently re-added with the edit summary That's all fact-based and could easily be sourced if necessary. Well, it could be thought of as necessary except for the fact that the wording itself is just plain non-encyclopedic:

During Marino's professional career (1983–1999) in Miami, he was one of the most skilled and revered quarterbacks in the game. Marino's release was incredibly quick, one of his most important weapons. Also, despite the fact that he was not known for his scrambling ability (he averaged less than 1 yard per carry on his 301 career rushing attempts), Marino possessed an uncanny awareness in the pocket, often sliding a step or two to avoid the pass rush. He has the most fourth quarter comebacks (36) in the history of the NFL, and the third most wins by a starting quarterback (147). John Elway and Brett Favre are ahead in overall wins.

Keeping WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and most especially WP:PEACOCK in mind, there are several problems with this passage. Most skilled and revered, incredibly quick, important weapons, and uncanny awareness are judgments. Instead, by listing his accomplishments and by quoting reliable sources, we can (and should) say things more along the lines of accomplished quarterback, known for quick release (with cite), excellent peripheral vision (with cite), and the like. The last two sentences seem OK as they are except that they are completely unsourced.  Frank  |  talk  22:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

So why didn't you just fix the paragraph instead of removing it completely? A simple search for terms like "quick release" brings up a book called Dan Marino by Jon Sterngass that basically says everything above on page 62 (the quick release, the pocket prescence, the 301 rushing yards). The comebacks are already referenced in the article. Smk42 (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

First, because the majority of the paragraph is simply not encyclopedic and reads like an adoring fan's tribute to the man rather than a serious encyclopedic article. Second, we don't put things into articles and hope someone else takes the time to provide sources, saying "could easily be sourced". I see you've put the material back in, but it's barely better than it was.  Frank  |  talk  23:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's a claim that Marino was named #25 on an NFL all-time list, but the reference is to a 2011 list on which he does not appear at all. Clearly the link is bad. Since there does not appear to be any supporting information, that is unreferenced, and I've removed it twice. I could even pull WP:BLP but...it's really not referenced. If he was number 25, surely we can find an actual reference that supports it. If not...it's been challenged and should not be reinstated.  Frank  |  talk  02:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Correction: The diff above - my removal - was mistaken as the link was corrected. The previous rev of the page had a bad link.  Frank  |  talk  16:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wow, a claim? How about a fact, that was referenced, and you removed that reference. Then you want a reference in an infobox, where they do not belong. Based on the past, I'm surprised you didn't just delete the entire infobox. Smk42 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The original link didn't support the claim; the one in there now does. I did mistakenly remove a reference that DID support it, for which I apologize. (The previous link did not, however.) Please stop with the personal attacks. They aren't productive and run the risk of negative consequences.  Frank  |  talk  00:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your threat is unwarranted and is more of a personal attacks than his last post. Let's all just cool it here, ok?LedRush (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's no threat and certainly no personal attack. I am pointing out that when people persist in personally attacking other editors, there are often negative consequences. I have consistently focused on the content of the article, and have also consistently tried to make sure that others understand that is the point here. If the personal attacks cease, there's nothing more to see here.  Frank  |  talk  15:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Where are these personal attacks? You know, many consider it a personal attack to accuse others without cause. Then, stating that negative consequences will occur if people persist in these non-existant attacks reads like a threat to me. Regardless, I'd just stop making the accusations and threats and focus on the article.LedRush (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at the history of this page and the article page. You'll find edits such as: ....What are you challenging?, Material is nothing that would be challenged/controversial because it's all factual, You're missing the point of the record. Marino no longer holds it; period, Big deal, the link changed. You're still trying to make the article worse I see and Wow, a claim? How about a fact, that was referenced, and you removed that reference. Then you want a reference in an infobox, where they do not belong. Based on the past, I'm surprised you didn't just delete the entire infobox. These are not exactly focused on content. These comments are combative and non-policy based, and some - especially the two most recent ones - are direct personal attacks against a single editor. I have a thick skin - no big deal to me, really, but that doesn't mean these edits are appropriate, and that's what my comment meant. Four of these five diffs are comments that were in edit summaries, not even on a talk page. That by itself is a combative means of communication. I would not have even spent the time to collect them together here, except that you've gone to the trouble to call them "non-existent", which isn't the case. I have requested no sanction, and despite your characterization, offered no threat. I simply stated how things work around here: when one is abrasive too many times, there can be negative consequences.  Frank  |  talk  23:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just don't see these personal attacks that you're referring to, though your threat is clear. I'd really just try and drop this and focus on the article, not the people, if I were you.LedRush (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Based on the past, I'm surprised you didn't just delete the entire infobox." is nothing but a personal attack. Ditto "You're still trying to make the article worse I see". It does nothing to advance the article; it merely insults another editor by making it clear that the other editor's efforts are not only not agreed with, but actually a willful effort to make things worse. It's fine to disagree with someone - happens all the time around here. It's NOT fine to assume that another person's edit is intended to make the article worse. That's where the personal attack part of it comes in. I can be wrong (I acknowledged that twice above when I removed a URL that actually did support the claim), but it's just exceedingly poor taste (to put the best spin possible) to tell me that I'm "still trying to make the article worse". That's the equivalent of when did you stop beating your wife? and there's no place for that around here. If you choose not to see that, we don't have any basis for conversation on that point - not that I intended to have a conversation anyway; I offered a word to the wise and you challenged it. I've provided concrete evidence to support my claim; you've offered only "I don't see it" in response - more than once. In addition, you've said more than once that you read a threat somewhere in my words...yet even though you claim it's clear, it doesn't exist. I have threatened nobody on this page, and I have no reason to, and I challenge you to find a threat anywhere in my words. (Explaining policy does not make a threat...it explains how things work on Wikipedia.)

Having said all that, on your second point about focusing on content, we agree 100%, and that's exactly the advice I have been pushing around here, in this section, earlier on this page, and elsewhere on the project. Not that I originated it or am unique in that; it's one of the WP:FIVE pillars of Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  05:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're not convincing me of anything other than that you're not willing to let this go. If you're insulted, go to WQA - but I'll guarantee you'll get no joy there. Instead of focusing on perceived slights, just stop the threats (which you have, thank you) and move on.LedRush (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was never intending to convince you of anything anyway, and there were never any threats to stop. The fact remains that personal attacks are explicitly against policy around here, and that the best idea - and the one which I continue to follow - is to focus on the content, not the contributor. I only ask that others do the same. That's what I am here for; and I encourage others to be the way as well. When it happens that each interaction with the same person results in being personally attacked, at some point, I'm going to say something, which I did. For me, that was the end of it, until you wanted to draw it out for some reason.  Frank  |  talk  16:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do most articles on athletes include a personal section which talks about things like affairs? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/dan-marino-love-child-_n_2594611.html

He's admitted it, so there aren't any BLP problems. Thoughts?LedRush (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I think anyone who confuses the two deserves what they have coming to them. One is a quarterback, the other is a principality.--Guiletheme (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

San Marino is the oldest republic in the world, established in the 1300s. Donutcity (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Marino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100303205053/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_300851.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_300851.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would like to add this sentence to the end of the header:

   "Marino is considered by many to be the greatest quarterback to never win a Super Bowl". 

I don't know about you, but when I think of Marino, that is the very first thing I think of. If you Google "greatest quarterback to never win a Super Bowl", there are many lists, and Marino is on the top of each and every one. If no one has any objections within the next couple of days, I'm adding it. Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would object strenuously to adding that sentence in that form. It is a completely subjective POV sentence and has no place in an encyclopedia article. It absolutely and indisputably must be sourced, and even then as the opinion that it is. Where is the metric for "greatest"? Who or what has ever been able to determine that? Since the assertion of "greatest" is necessarily an opinion, it would need to be added as an opinion articulated by a specific person or persons - who must be themselves WP:RS. That's a tall order, and one that ultimately may not add that much value to the afrticle. Sensei48 (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are many precedents (for better or for worse) for stuff like this in the leads of NFL players:

Jerry Rice: He is widely considered the greatest wide receiver in NFL history, and often called the greatest NFL player of all time.

Tom Brady: Because of his accomplishments and accolades, many analysts and sportswriters consider Brady to be among the greatest quarterbacks of all time.

Peyton Manning: Considered to be one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time due to his numerous career achievements...

Joe Greene: Greene is widely considered one of the greatest defensive linemen to play in the NFL.

Johnny Unitas: He has been consistently listed as one of the greatest NFL players of all time.

Dick Butkus: Butkus is widely regarded as one of the greatest and most intimidating linebackers in pro football history.

Of course, all of these are supported by sources, either directly following the text or somewhere else in the article. Notice all of them except Rice use the phrase "one of the greatest," which is a lot easier to support than saying they're the greatest. It works for Rice because it's explicitly worded as such in the sources. Be careful to avoid original research—merely gathering up a bunch of "top 10" lists with Marino on them and saying "Marino is considered by many to be the greatest..." would be original research, as none of the sources explicitly state so (unless, of course, they do). Lizard (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

True, "greatest quarterback" is purely a opinion point of view in that it is not a measurable status, but that's why the wording "considered by many" is placed before that. Whether or not Marino is or is not the greatest QB of all time to never win a Super Bowl is up for debate by anyone with an opinion, however, the opinion of many is that he is, which can be sourced with many articles. If you go to The Sopranos page, they wrote "The Sopranos is widely regarded as one of the greatest television series of all time" in the header. It is supported with many articles stating this. Now is it actually the greatest TV show of all time? That is entirely up to the individual, however, it is considered by many to be, therefore the sentence stands. Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

As above, I would not object to the idea of this sentence if properly sourced - as it is in The Sopranos, which might well serve as a model for what to do here. It's a "good article" and lists five sources for the "one of" assertions. The only point at which the lede asserts "best" is at the end and attributed narrowly and specifically to The Writer's Guild of America and to TV Guide. Get 4 or 5 WP:RS that make the "one of the best" assertion and annotate them correctly and the sentence improves from unacceptable POV to merely unacceptable rhetorically. All of the cited sentences above except on Brady are written in incorrectly used passive voice: they weasel out of precise thinking and expression with the vague generalization "is/are widely considered" with utterly no indication of "by whom." This is impermissible in academic writing most of the time and almost equally so in professional publications. The fact that incorrect use of the passive is so common on Wikpedia is one of the many, many reasons that most schools and colleges will not let students use it as a source. If we care about the quality of this article about an athlete who is eminently deserving of the best that we can create, then let's source it and write it well.

....and just for reference, it might be useful to review when and when not to employ the passive in these notes from the University of North Carolina here [3] and the University of Toronto here [4]. Sensei48 (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think instead of the sentence that I proposed adding above, the following will be a bit easier to source:

           "Marino is considered by many to be one of the greatest quarterbacks to never win a Super Bowl".

Rather than narrowing it down and saying that he is "the" greatest, this broadens it to say he is "one of the". Zdawg1029 (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

As you can see, I went ahead and added the line, it seems to fit well in my humble opinion. Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's sort of an odd picture. It appears to be in motion of him adjusting his face/mouth, and just overall, not a good, encyclopedic representation of what he looks like, so I don't really understand why it was approved. 2601:58B:C601:7AE0:9045:21F0:45B6:7CA3 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fade258: @SloppyMuffin67: @Sennecaster: You all have reverted edits that state Marino was a 5x second-team All Pro player rather than only three times. However, the source used in the All-Pro articles by year, pro-football-reference.com, shows that Dan Marino was an AP selected second-team All-Pro player in both 1988 and 1983. I accepted an edit correcting it to five times, I just wanted to note this since it has been reverted multiple times previously. Thanks! —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 04:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I donot find information in sources which you reverted or information which you had accepted.(Fade258 (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC))Reply

@Fade258: What do you not find? The source clearly shows Marino as the second-team All-Pro quarterback in both 1983 and 1988. Just Ctrl + f (Windows, Linux, and Chrome OS) or ⌘ + f (Mac) to search the phrase "Dan Marino". —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 06:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I am browsing in mobile.I think you are right to accept that edit.(Fade258 (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)) <beReply

  No problem, thanks! —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 06:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@KristofferAG: pinging you as the newest member of the club of people editing Marino's Second-Team AP All Pro award stats. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@FormalDude: Please refer to the discussion on WP:NFL I linked in my edit summary, which I'll link again for you here and which refers to this particular article. The reasoning for only including three of the years he was a second-team All-Pro is given there, and those who took the time to respond seem to all agree that only AP All-Pro selections should be included in the infobox. He was only an AP All-Pro in '83, '94 and '95, as seen on the Pro Football Hall of Fame article as well as his Pro-Football-Reference page. If we are to include NEA All-Pro then he's actually a 7 time Second-team All-Pro. KristofferAG (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Moved from User talk:FormalDude § Dan Marino was 2nd Team NEA All-Pro. Please fix this.

 – FormalDude talk 12:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why are you only allowing the AP All-Pro Teams? The Hall of Fame and Pro Football Reference recognizes Marino as an 8-Time All-Pro. Stating on this page that he was only a 6-Time All-Pro is NOT a correct statement and gives your site no credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarinoFan13 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Dan Marino.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply