Here's one I'm very willing to concede:
Brady best career for an NFL quarterback. He won at a very high level for longer than anyone else.
Hands down, cannot dispute it on any level.
Now being the very best QB takes a s***load of analysis to determine. The type that you can isolate theoretically for one season, one game, one drive....
Merely counting rings is simpleton think in my mind to determine GOATs. A lot of people do it, and a lot of people aren't seeing everything.
In some ways, I can appreciate a good argument that Dan Marino is the GOAT.
Naturally that will take everything BUT Lombardi count into consideration, as the question is very simple:
"How many SBs would the 49ers have won in the '80s with Marino?". Some feel he could have won 3 or 4 no problem, and why not?
Brady by the eye test is great, but Montana IMO was better.
And when you go over the highlights of their best 10 games of their career, it is even more apparent.
When it comes down to it, a lot of it is emotional arguing -- pick your favorite first, then tailor your arguments to support them.
We all do it, and I'm sure I'm guilty of it.
So I will ask some of you here to qualitatively break down Montana vs Brady with regards to skillsets purely........throw out win totals, stats, supporting casts........
Let's evaluate them with the brutal honesty we have evaluated AS, CK, etc.