Just when I thought I had finished my rants regarding the Greatest of All Time (GOAT) debates - this after withstanding some rather venomous criticism for challenging the now suddenly sacred cow assertion that one must be irrational or a fool if one doubts granting Roger Federer that title in tennis - we now have the quarterback GOAT debate heating up again. Specifically in this case, Peyton Manning's occupancy in that echelon of elite quarterbacks.

Again, this is an exercise in folly as it's foolish and simplistic to attempt to compare great players across different eras. It just can't be done fairly. Now, it's one thing for fathers and sons to argue about who is better when comparing players from their respective generations. That's a natural and healthy conversation. And who wouldn't want to protect the sanctity of their era when comparing it to decades past?

But, for sportswriters to engage in this kind of debate is tiresome, lazy and useless. And it's gotten to be so damn predictable, an annual rite for every sport. It's a practice that's been around forever most likely but it seems to have picked up speed with Michael Jordan back in the 90's and on to Tiger Woods. And not to pick on sports, this is occurring across all topics, as we're a culture obsessed with lists of all kinds - greatest films, TV shows, songs etc. And so often it's a just a popularity contest anyway. Such arguments rarely illuminate.

For the football quarterback GOAT debate the only thing one can do, objectively and equitably, would be to compare players from their own era. And then after that is done, make a list of the top two from each period in the sport's history and end the conversation - as there'd be a group of five or ten that would have to undeniably be considered in the Among the Best of All Time (ABAT) category.

So let's start with Manning. I doubt there'd be much opposition to the statement that he is the best today. Although there'd be some angry, cold New Englanders who would take great issue with such a declaration and claim that he doesn't get it done enough in the postseason and their man Tom Brady would qualify. Personally, I think Manning is a better quarterback - by a little - but you'd have to acknowledge that the two of them represent the paragon of the current crop of quarterbacks.

So going back throughout history, one could compile a list of the two or three finest quarterbacks from each era. Here's what I came up with:

Sammy Baugh
Otto Graham
Johnny Unitas
Roger Staubach
Terry Bradshaw
Joe Montana
John Elway
Dan Marino
Brett Favre
Manning
Brady

And then choosing from this list I'd narrow it down to just a few at the very top:
Montana, Baugh and Unitas. With a second tier of: Elway, Manning and Graham.
And that'd be enough. Let it rest there. All of these superb players are deserving of the ABAT designation.

Now of course any such list would not be treated with universal - or even partial - acclaim. Surely Steve Young, Joe Namath, Fran Tarkenton, Ken Stabler, Jim Kelly, Bart Starr and many others would have their staunch supporters who would be greatly offended by their omission. That's fine. But I'd be shocked to find an astute follower of the sport to quibble in general with any of the aforementioned quarterbacks being talked about as ABAT.

And no athlete is perfect. Even the greatest of the great possess their own unique and acute weaknesses. No athlete is perfect (and yes that includes Federer and Michael Jordan too). And when judging the majesty of the great quarterbacks, one has to consider their deficiencies - with Montana it was his fragile body; Marino and Manning can't move; Favre was/is reckless; Elway forced the issue too often early on, etc.

I prefer to compare all of these players in a manner of a Venn diagram of overlapping circles representing similar strengths. And no player is peerless in all of the major categories -- accuracy, throwing distance/strength, finesse, scrambling/running ability, field vision, decision making prowess. Yet each of the ABATs was superb in all but one of these headings.

Everyone has their own way of judging the majesty of athletes. For those who are Bill James-stats-inclined, they'd likely favor efficient and pure passers like Manning and Marino. Others - as I do - prefer the more results oriented quarterback who thrive during comebacks and postseason games with an eerie consistency. And then there are those analysts who are purely win oriented, championships are what count. So therefore, Favre and Manning are out whereas Aikman - and maybe Roethlisberger and Jim Plunkett - are brought to the argument. All of these methods of analysis are useful and valid.

When comparing the superlative performers from varied eras, there are just too many variables and differences - be them technological, physical or stylistic - that make it pointless to try to prove that "so and so would have dominated today had he been around" or "are you kidding me, the top quarterback today is exponentially better than the best of the 1950s."

And just remember the ever-changing narrative that Manning's career has taken to this point. First he was an overrated and over-hyped rookie, then a talented player who couldn't win playoff games, then he became a Super Bowl winner and now he's being talked about as the GOAT. But sure enough, once again there will be a bounty of stories written about Manning that question his ability to win the big games. So it's hard to take any of this seriously. Just wait until a career is over and analyze these great athletes in the correct context.