I'm not arguing with you, Mr. chiefzilla1501 (at least, not yet).

So, given the right circumstances and based on his talent level and football knowledge, you think Rivers could win a Super Bowl but Cutler couldn't. Right?

FAX

It's a tough one. I don't think Norv Turner is bringing any team to the Super Bowl, but Rivers brought a Norv team as far as you'd expect. I don't think Cutler would unless surrounded by the right players. Kind of like Romeo Crennel, all the talent in the world, but not a damn person would want to follow that guy.

The point being... finding an elite QB is really hard. And we too often act like just using a top 10 pick solves everything. Lots of teams spend top 10 picks on QBs that don't pan out or are basically Rivers/Cutler/Hasselbeck level. But you gotta keep swinging, and I disagree with jd that because Dalton isn't winning Super Bowls in his second season, we should somehow dismiss him as a potential franchise QB. Let's not forget that this time last year, people were convinced Cam Newton had star potential and that Matt Ryan had an arrow down.

Okay ... I get all that.

But honestly, the question is really simple. And I'm not attempting to use some kind of Socratic method to trap you or make the weaker argument defeat the stronger. I'm not even thinking of arguing with you. Now or in the future. If I am, may I drink Hemlock juice.

Forget Norv. Forget Roleo. Forget Dalton and Hasselbeck and all that other stuff. All I'm asking is this; assuming everything else is equal ... coaching, players, scheme, time of day, and what they ate for breakfast, etc. ... let's even say that their opponents are equal to their team in skill and experience across the board so there is no particular advantage at any position or in coaching, okay?

Do you think Rivers has the talent and football knowledge necessary to win a Super Bowl? Yes or no.
Do you think Cutler has the talent and football knowledge necessary to win a Super Bowl? Yes or no.

And since it's so damn difficult to get you to answer a simple question, I'll get one more in on this post just in case I get lucky.

Do you think Schaub has the talent and football knowledge necessary to win a Super Bowl? Yes or no.

FAX

Sorry, must have been a disconnect.

Are any of those guys rare QB talents who can single-handedly lead a team to the Super Bowl by themselves? No. That's why I'm saying guys like Rodgers and Brady, etc... are such rarities.

Can these guys win a Super Bowl behind a good supporting cast? Rivers can. Schaub needs a bit of help. Cutler needs a TON of help and luck on his side.

We're just at an era where 4 or 5 QBs are winning the majority of Super Bowls. But we shouldn't make it sound like those guys are in any way easy to find. Lots of teams like Houston and San Diego have good QBs that aren't elite.

Okay, thanks.

So the answer is; Rivers, yes. Cutler, no. Schaub, no.

Is that correct?

FAX

Rivers can do it, but under a very good coach
Schaub is a longshot
Cutler is a very big longshot

Roethlesberger punting the ball was a nice touch.

If Weeden shows legit flashes this year, the Browns are not trading him or drafting over him. That team will attempt to add another viable piece of two to continue to build.

And it perfectly reasonable to end up with a next-tier guy (think Flacco, Schaub, Rivers, Cutler) in an effort to acquire an elite QB. All of the QBs whom I've listed also have the necessary talent to win a SB. Do all of them have the necessary intangibles? Perhaps not, but that's a different discussion.

Right now, we need talent, and we have to hope that our (new? please...) GM can correctly select a highly talented QB who is also a fine leader. Cassel, while a nice guy, possesses neither of these characteristics.

Not me. I wanted him sooo bad in the 6th-7th. I had no doubt that this guy was going to be a hell of a player. I like Belcher, but think this guy would have been awesome in the "thumper" role.

Schaub has a better chance of winning it all than either Rivers or Cutler.

Anybody notice the stats they were throwing up before the game/early in the game about the Steelers offense?

Sacks - down. Yards - up. Efficiency - 2nd in the NFL. And on and on and on.

Say what you want about that crazy mother****er, he's a good offensive mind.

And we're stuck with ****ing Romeo.

Yet Rapes was criticizing it.

He was resistant to change, yes. He had a very close relationship with Arians.

Is Big Ben saying anything about it now? I certainly haven't heard him say anything bad in quite some time.

That was cool. I remember seeing Kordell Stewart do that years ago.

As for Haley, I am rooting against him. His WRs have all the speed in the world and he's running a short passing game. It's pretty ironic when you think about how he tried to force a downfield passing game in KC. He has made a big play offense boring. Also, what about the drops? Could he have a hand in the drops? These guys didn't used to drop balls. Here's an interesting tidbit from Peter king this morning.

Sunday morning:

In a story in Sunday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Ben Roethlisberger had the following exchange with writer Joe Starkey.

Roethlisberger: "Haley's offense is not a big-play offense, it's kind of a dink-and-dunk offense."

Starkey: "Is there room for more quick strikes?"

Roethlisberger: "We did that last week (82-yard pass to Mike Wallace)."

Starkey: "Right, but you never went back to it."

Roethlisberger: "There's a guy calling the plays. That's on him."