Brett Favre Vs. Joe Montana

So I know I have been one of the staunchest supporters of Aaron Rodgers, but I have not forgotten all the things to appreciate about Brett Favre. Therefore, I feel compelled to weigh in on his place in history.

Whenever there is a debate over great quarterbacks, there is a large segment of football fans who act like there is no contest. "Joe Montana won four Super Bowls...end of discussion," will often be their opening and closing statement.

Really? That's it, huh? Well, Bart Starr won five titles, but does anyone think he's better than Joe? Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl, but does anyone think he's better than Dan Marino? If you said yes to either of those things, don't bother to comment on this article.

Championships are won or lost as a team, and they are less important to how good a quarterback is than his statistics that reflect how he performs. John Elway was seen as a choker until he finally had a team around him, at which point he became a repeat champion.

Not winning as many titles generally means you had less to work with. And that is also a factor in one's statistics. What can even the best quarterback do behind a bad offensive line or with pedestrian receivers? How many times have you heard an announcer say, "Give any NFL quarterback that kind of time and he'll pick you apart."

There is a strong and viable argument for any of the following quarterbacks to be considered better than Montana: John Elway, Brett Favre, Dan Marino, and maybe Otto Graham. In about two seasons, I would expect that the case would also be easily made for Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

Being a Packers fan, I will take Brett's case up. Due to space limitations, let's start with just the two most common arguments for Montana and address them they pertain to Favre:

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?