I haven't replied yet, but I can't compare players from different eras. Totally different rules and beasts.
Here comes the gasoline... Terry Bradshaw is one of the worst QBs to ever win a Super Bowl and/or a SB MVP.
Bradshaw would never have sniffed the Hall on another team. His team carried him. He did well in a couple Super Bowls and a couple blowouts in the playoffs. He won an MVP in an age when INTs were an afterthought when people looked at the stat sheet. Brett Fave at least eclipsed his INT count by a far amount most of the time. He's the #1 reason many Pittsburgh fans scream only Championships matter. It's the Bradshaw bias.
Yup, and all those who lost on the biggest stage are ineligible to be even considered for GOAT. Doesn't mean they weren' good QBs, just not GOAT ELIGIBLE.
Tim, that second quote sounds suspiciously like CBS poster "irregardless" who I regularly schooled in football.
While both are used synonymously, the word origins show "greater" to be more attuned to quantitative comparison, and "better" to qualitative comparison. This is why I make a distinction. Which is why you say 2 is greater than 1, but Jif is better than Skippy. So while Emmitt Smith is the Greatest Running back of all time (accomplished the most as a RB) Barry Sanders was the Best (most awesome in any individual instance)
Somehow, I would not be shocked if the thousands of anonymous Twitter football trolls were actually one 14 year old kid in Arminto Wyoming.