You're ignoring parts claiming I didn't add them, and now you're cherry picking. This is pointless.

Neither have much of a full body of work. You first said Taysom had better overall stats. I responded by asking if you really meant better, or just more. Because that's really all it is. With so many partial seasons, it's hard to just go through and compile all of his numbers in 5 years and call them "better" just because they are greater in number. That's why I specifically asked about total body of work compiled as raw numbers vs comparing the best season of each. Both have their arguments, but the point is that both had very incomplete careers. It's extremely hard to say Taysom's were "better." Not really. He just had a few more partial seasons in there to give him greater numbers. And those don't mean much on their own. Taysom played longer and compiled "more stats" over his career. Doman's best year was "better" than Hill's best year.

The whole point here is that BOTH sides disqualify. Having one single season to talk about isn't enough of an argument for the topic. And neither is talking about an "entire career" if it's full of sporadic off and on play. It's not an argument to compile sporadic and irregular numbers across a bunch of partial seasons. Again, it doesn't work for the topic of top 10 QBs in history. Neither do.