And no, I wouldn't rank QBs like that either. It's not only numbers. But it's not like the other guys listed weren't totally dominant. You watch them to understand, not just looking at a page with numbers on it.

You can rank them how you choose, I just don't understand factoring "could have's" into the equation of the best to play the game. For all we know, Troy Hinds might be the best there never was. But all that matters is that he unfortunately never did a thing at BYU.

BYU has had a lot of total packages all over the field, who never lived up to it. But that fact has to stay as it is. They didn't live up to it even if they had the capability. The most athletic? The most potential? Things like that are fine to rank anyone at all because it doesn't require their performance on the field to be factored in. Ziggy might be the most athletic DE to ever play, but that doesn't mean he was the best at BYU.

In the end I just look at everything, but what actually happened weighs the most.

One thing I will say is that "best" in sports is almost always subjective. So many qualifying and "disqualifying" factors. I think you've always got a group of guys who you can make arguments for. I just don't think enough adds up for Mili to be top 2, definitely not top overall.