I hear what you are saying Porky and expected that line a while ago.
GB may or may not have won 5 championships today but it was due more to the current free agent situation than to race. If Washington didn't have any Black players or they had one that has little or no bearing on the issue. Other teams would have picked the players up and released their less qualified ones. That made other contending teams stronger not to have good players sitting on weak teams..
There were also fewer teams and fewer players on each team. But then there were less people in the US back then also. Proportionally speaking the numbers would have shown more men played in the NFL and AFL than the percentage is today. Therefore you most likely would have had a higher percent of the better skilled men playing than today.
In an 8 year span between 1960 and 1967 GB had the best regular season record only 3 times. 1961,1962 and 1967. The other 5 times there were at least 2 teams that had records that equaled GB's or was better. Different teams were strong at different times but the Giants, Lions, Browns, Eagles and even the Bears had powerful teams in the 60's.
The players back then were smaller because they did not devote themselves to training year round. The majority of the stars from that day would succeed in they played today. They would utilize today's training techniques just like everyone else does. Today's players are not some scientific invention of spliced genomes and chromosomes. They are above average men who do above average things. It is a skill they developed no reason to assume other men could not learn the same way they do.
I have said it a few times maybe if I say it in a different fashion it will sink in. I have no great nostalgia or affinity to Starr. He is not sacred to me. I simply want an equitable comparison made. Everyone knows they played in different eras and it is impossible to forecast what Bart would have done if he played today or Aaron if he played in the 60's. That said give some cushion to the scrutiny of Bart's passes and don't hold Aaron's up as if they came off Mt Olympus. It has been mentioned there were other QBs in Bart's day who had more passing yards. While this is true they did not have the running backs that Bart had. There was no incentive for him to pass when they could win by running. Same holds true today. Aaron is a better passer than his running backs are at carrying the ball. I don't mind it if he swaps from a run to a pass. If needed Bart would have thrown more and been smart about it. IIRC his interception ratio was outstanding.
Give credit to Bart for playing in a rougher, tougher league when it comes to how the defense played. Guys may have been smaller back then, there may not have been as many players "of Color" back then but the ones who played hit a heck of a lot harder than they do today. How many helmet to helmet hits caused incompletions back then? How many hits beyond 5 yards threw off the timing of a pass?
When comparing the two give credence to the play calling that Bart was able to do that Aaron is not required to do. Can Aaron make those calls? Sure but he doesn't get the opportunity that Bart did. Does that count into Bart's favor? To some degree it should.
Are we going to look solely at who was the better passer? If you wish, but then that is not asking who is the better QB. That is asking an entirely different question.
When you look at passing stats are you going to consider Bart had few games and thus he has to have fewer opportunities?
When you look at Aaron are you adding the same numbers to him for the next 5-7 years? You can't do that. He work is incomplete. he has not accomplished what Bart has accomplished.
All I ask is to look at all the factors on not solely at the golden arm when we discuss this.