If that is what you think I am saying I think we need to start over. I never said anything even approaching that and I hope your reading skills are better than this - especially if you went to a school as good as Notre Dame. Seriously, I went back and looked at what I wrote and I don't know how in the world you could have rationally come to the conclusion you did based on what I wrote.
I simply said that IMO it an exercise in futility to play the "best ever game" but it is possible to assemble a list of greats at a position over time. It is nearly impossible to say who was the best but you do have certain facts that can aid in an argument. When a guy has been the QB of 4 SB champs and went 4-0 in the big game, was SB MVP 3 times and all of the other things Montana has on his resume, these are FACTS that cannot be taken from him and can only count as big positives when considering the greatest ever. Did I anywhere attempt to make the case that the QB and QB alone wins championships? I don't think I did. But, I did say, FAIR OR NOT, post season success is something that gets tossed out there when discussing the greatest guys ever. I did say that playing the postion at a high level takes a LOT more than a big, physical guy with a cannon for an arm. If that was the main recipe, then Ryan Leaf would have won at least a couple.
So, nowhere did I say what you think I said. But you typed, and I quote, that Marino was "clearly" better than Montana. This is a statement that is not only crystal clear in it's meaning, but also impossible to prove and highly doubtful. Then you temper that by saying in your last post "My argument was put Marino on the 49ers, which was the much better team of the two, and do you think he would have won a Super Bowl?" Well, if he was CLEARLY better than Montana was don't you think the argument had they switched teams started at a minimum of 4 championships and not just one?