I used to argue with him a lot back in the day. When Brady started winning more rings his arguments got more and more fringe.

His usual MO is to say that he wants to use "blind stats" from five categories so it has less of a chance of being biased. The trick is he will pick and choose dates, if things are era adjusted or not and to use stats that no one really uses. He plugs in his numbers and POOF ...

Like I could understand it if you think "x" stat is more important than a more conventional one. But his are nonsense. Or I could understand it if using "x" stat you found something reasonable like Montana being better than Brady. But his stats have like Brady being the fifth or so best QB.