Hard to evaluate Unitas....it was a different era
But he was the first modern, gunslinging QB and changed the position
Agree, it is so tough to evaluate across era's which is partly why I stick to the two I've seen.
But it's tough to favor the modern guys who play when the rules make it the easiest to throw the football. I mean the minute the NFL changed the passing rules, a past his prime Bradshaw led the league in TD's (twice in 5 years) and won regular season MVP.
And then you have the WCO that has proliferated the entire NFL. Used to be players weren't playing for efficiency, but the big play. Imagine in 20 years we are grading WR's based on yards per catch, the most efficient WR. Jerry Rice is barely top 200 there. Does that mean he's now mediocre?
I think Aikman and Elway get seriously knocked for not playing in a WCO (Elway did at the end and poof, his efficiency numbers popped right up to Montana levels).
But best of the best I tend to lean with a guy who did something over coming up with reasons someone else didn't do that.
IE. Marino. AMAZING QB. HOFer in his first 4 years. He was that good. And his team was outrushed by something like 170 yards in his losses on average. HORRENDOUS D and run game. Only QB to ever overcome that kind of rushing disparity in the post-season? Marino beat the Browns once in a game they ran for over 250 yards against Miami. So expecting him to be able to do what nobody else ever could to win games is tough. Seriously, it's something like 30% of the biggest rushing discrepancies in post-season play of ALL of NFL history had Marino on the losing end of them.
Anyways, lots of great reasons he should be #1, and why he didn't have that post-season success. But when it comes to best of best. He didn't have that success (and QB is the only one I really weigh here barring insane stuff like Terrell Davis or Marvin Harrison).
But that's my thoughts and the fun thing is, its not wrong. Just like Starr at #1 isn't necessarily wrong. I have my reasons he isn't atop my list, but that's me.