In response to p-mike's comment:
I like this thread insofar as it proves that you can find (or invent) whatever statistic you need to bolster whatever point you are trying to make.
I like it less in that it is trying to compare apples to oranges . . . and more than that . . . I don't really care who is "better."
When Joe Montana was ruling the NFL, my team (and yours) was not only bad, but a running joke. I knew I respected Joe Montans because I always rooted against him (not that it was ever my favorite team playing against him) . . . in much the way the people who resent the success of the Brady era Patriots root against him and them.
Here's an analogy that won't make any sense:
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't touch Angelina Jolie with nitrile gloves . . . but I still think it might be pretty cool to be Brad Pitt for a day or two.
Look: In the final analysis, it doesn't matter who won more Super Bowls or lost more conference championships or threw more interceptions or contracted more social diseases from Angelina Jolie . . .
The point is in the entertainment of the generation.
Does it bother me that the guy who was supposed to be my hero (Jim Plunkett) ended up becoming famous ( years later) with the team that screwed my heroes out of their only legitimate Super Bowl shot what seems like a hundred years ago?
Well . . . yes . . . yes, it does.
But do I feel better when it occurs to me that my grandchildren will be comparing their guy to Tom Brady (and not Joe Montana)?
I most surely do.
Agreed. And, of course, this thread neglects to mention Baugh, Graham, & Unitas. So maybe only the flavors of the last couple of decades will be in vogue then too