Got your attention? Good. Well, many people feel that Joe Montana is the best QB ever. I don't think I am qualified to fully argue that. I will however argue some of the points that people bring up to ‘shoot down' any challengers to his throne.
Otto Graham: People say he might have the titles but he doesn't have the stats. It doesn't matter that he put up better stats than any QB in his era... It doesn't matter that he was selected to the Pro-bowl 5 of the 6 seasons he was eligible, or that he was a first team All-Pro 7 of his 10 years. It doesn't matter that his team won their division 10 years straight. It doesn't matter that he has more titles than any QB. (7)
Dan Marino types: Great stats. Better in stats as a QB than Joe Montana even during the same era. But we ALL know the argument against Dan: He never won a title.
John Elway: Great Stats: From the same era as Joe, and better than Joe. AND he has two rings. But we ALL know he wouldn't have the titles without Terrell Davis so he doesn't qualify. Plus it was only 2 titles. Not 4.
Terry Bradshaw: Has the 4 SB rings!! But like Graham, he doesn't have the stats. He wasn't in the top 5 in stats during his era. So, he doesn't belong in the discussion. But he wasn't
Peyton Manning: Has a ring and the Gaudy stats. Likely to break all of the current major QB stats in his career barring major career ending injury. People like to say he only has one ring. So, he lumps into Marino territory. Except he has a ring. But its only one.
Brett Favre: Great Stats, (minus that little Interception problem..) and a title. But, again, more like Peyton in that he only has one ring.
Tom Brady: Wait a minute... Does he belong in this discussion? Well, not yet. But if he were to win one more ring, and continue for 5 more years posting his average numbers, he would tie Joe's rings and surpass his Stats. As someone said, it's the TOTAL package... Which Tom would have IF he stays in the league AND IF he wins one more Superbowl. (Yes, too many What If's to truly inlcude him in the debate)
But Wait... The argument is that he is a 'System QB.' Ok.. People like to point out that Matt Cassel put up great numbers in his absence for that System. So that discounts him? Hmmm.. Well.. Now I think we have forgotten what Steve Young did in the Same system that Montana Played in. I think Young became a HoF QB in that System? So.. Does that make Montana and Young System QB's?
My point is, there are multiple factors that would go into the discussion of who the best all time would and should be. It isn't as easy as looking at numbers and titles. Eras are different, stats are meaningful for the era they play in. The one item that CAN'T be measured? Leadership. Only the people who have played with each person are able to answer that.