Yes, there's no doubt that's how things worked out...BUT Alex Smith was bigger, a little faster and thought to have a stronger arm than Rodgers. I don't really know how everyone could have been so wrong on Rodgers arm strength...I know it got stronger with his mechanics changing early in GB, but you're comparing them after looking at how things panned out in their careers. Smith went to a team where he was beat up early, then was "salvaged" as a game manager. Rodgers was able to sit for three years and was put into a pretty good situation with Jennings, Driver, Jordy, Jones, Finley. I'm just playing devils advocate. If Rodgers has to start year one...by year 3 maybe he's been on IR once, struggled for a couple years, McCarthy and Clement are gone, maybe they even draft someone to replace him. And conversely if Smith had been able to sit and then step in to a team that was built with a lot of young talent to throw to... Like I said, I think Rodgers would still have been better, but I don't know that it would have been AS obvious as it is now. How many young QB's have we seen ruined by bad situations. Sam Donald is a perfect example. That dude can spin it...and he looks like a joke in New York. He's been given absolutely no chance to succeed. Yes, I agree that the situation means a lot. But it sounded like you were trying to spin that Smith's talent is actually equal to Rodgers, but put in a worse situation. That is the part I was debating. Several (and not just Packer fans) have stated that Rodgers is one of the most talented QBs ever (arm strength, accuracy, defense recognition, scramble ability, etc..). Thus the one SB means we wasted a lot of his talent... Who knows... maybe he would've won more with the 49ers. Similar with Eli Manning vs. Phillip Rivers: You will never make me believe the Eli Manning was the better QB. Rivers was far more talented, but his situation was terrible compared to Eil's.