So the judgment criteria is whatever we determine it to be based on the position?
A QB has to be rings and stats?
Everyone else is just stats?
I understand that in general the QB is more valuable a position, but it's still a team game as displayed by QBs that have won it in the past.
I guess actual production is less valued than team success. Somewhat strange when determining the actual best at a position. Weird double standard.
I can buy the rings + stats > stats alone in the NBA. The value of an individual is greatly inflated in that situation. Therefore we can see that a superstar will have a disproportionate effect on championship runs. In the NFL even with an elite passer, the balance is shifted to the team as whole. Especially in the post-season where typically the more balanced teams survive and less balanced teams do not.
It's perfectly displayed by both Elway's and Brady's careers. Elway carried poor teams to the early Superbowls and they were promptly dismantled. When an actual balanced team was built around him, they broke through despite Elway playing the role of a semi-elite game manager.
Same for Brady. Early on he was basically an semi-elite game manager. Team won 3 Spygate era SBs. Fast forward to the losses and they were less balanced (Brady became elite in this time period thanks to Moss), and dismantled by a more balanced, less talented team. They won it this year with Brady having Stafford level stats, and being a more balanced team as a whole.
I guess if one wants to give Brady the GOAT status on that, that's fine with me. If you want to say who is the better QB at the position based on production at the postion, an argument can be made otherwise.
Most people don't differentiate the two. Which is fine.
What does all of this have to do with WR's? They aren't even in the same ballpark of importance as a QB. Nice switch of topic though..