Ben Roethlisberger is the best QB out of the 2004 NFL draft

First I would like to apologize for assuming you were a guy at the beginning of the debate...... but it would appear I am not the only one who is presumptuous in this debate so far, as i will show soon enough. I am going to continue this debate first by attempting to refute most, if not all of con's contentions, and then proceed to restate the contentions I feel con either did not refute or did not refute substantially. The first of con's presumptions is the suggestion that playoff and superbowl success has no bearing on how good a QB is. we only have to look at quarterbacks such as Dan Fouts, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, and Warren Moon to see how harshly great quarterbacks(as all of the previous mentioned are) can be judged from not getting a ring. QB is probably the only position in football that a player gets judged based on winning, and rightfully so, quarterbacks are the generals of the field and expected to win as such. The next presumption of con would be of the steelers having a superior team. This is a huge assumption for a few reasons. 1. It uses circular reasoning to justify its cause, con is essentially saying the steelers won in the playoffs and won superbowls because they were a great team, but at the same time the steelers were considered a great team because they could win in the playoffs and won superbowls. 2. Im going to use some of con's data to support my next claim that the steelers were not an inherently better team then he chargers. 2006 - 07 Chargers: 14-2 Steelers: 8-8 2007 - 08 Chargers: 11-5 Steelers: 10-6 2008 - 09 Chargers: 8-8 Steelers: 12-4 2009 - 10 Chargers: 13-3 Steelers: 9-7 I would like to focus most specifically on the years 2006 and 2009, what do both of these years have in common? Well two things. A. The chargers finished the season with a vastly superior record(a common method for showing if a team is good I proclaim) B. The steelers won the in the playoffs and won the superbowl. I believe this clearly shows the chargers have had at the very least comparable(if not arguably better) teams then the steelers, but were just not able to perform in the post season, which i believe is a correlation to Rivers inability to perform at a high level in the playoffs. 3. the presumption of better players for the steelers than the Chargers. Con already makes my first argument for this being a huge assuption on her part, and that is with a one L.T. Anyone who knows football knows how important a solid running game is for a quarterback(especially a young one) also consider L.T. was known for having amazing hands out of the backfield, so to downplay having one of the greatest(arguably the greatest) running backs of all time is quite a stretch, not to mention i think you might be forgetting a certain antonio gates AKA one of the greatest pass catching Tight Ends of all time. Furthermore there is also the likes of Vincent Jackson, and Keenan McCardell and on defense there was all pro linebacker Shawne Merriman(still in his prime when Rivers started playing) I believe have shown considerable example of at the very least how the chargers had a comparable(if not better) team then the steelers. Id not like to focus on Con's contention 1A through 1E as a whole and show why all of this statistical data is extremely presumptuous. The Main issue I have with Con's notion of River's being a better quarterback based on 1A-1E is that it all assumes a consistent rate of play for a player who was apparently not ready to start. The amount of knowledge and preparation Rivers gained while sitting on the bench learning from the great Drew Brees is not only invaluable but more significantly immeasurable. It is impossible to say how River's would have performed as a rookie or during any of the years after that he did not have the starting job, but if history shows us anything it shows us rookie QB's tend to struggle in the NFL. Therefore because Big Ben was thrusted into the NFL as a rookie and Rivers was not, Ben R. had to go through he struggles Rivers got to handle in practice. Because of this I believe it is reasonable to assume that a younger more inexperienced Philip Rivers starting would have produced a lower passing TDs per game, completion percentage, and Yards Per Game, while also presumably leave him with a higher INT rate then he has as well(as nearly every QB ever progresses and gets better a few years in the NFL then there first few years). On a side note I find 1E to be at best a relatively irrelevant statistic due to, as you stated Ben's legal issues keeping him on the sideline. Not only did he not get a sufficient chance to get into a groove yet, not to mention i find it a stretch to try to throw 3 regular season games into a category itself when looking at a 6 year career. Contention 2 brings the same issues as contention 1 in that it assumes the steelers as a superior team, and also uses circular reasoning to support the steelers having better coaches because of them winning SB's, vs, them winning SB's because they have better coaches. Finally contention 2 leaves out Big Ben's season's when Rivers was on the bench which I find unfair. Once again Con attempts to assume Rivers would play up to his standards his rookie year and second year in the NFL, while it is possible to be a winning QB as a rookie(see Big Ben or Mark sanchez rookie wins) it is far more likely he has significantly less wins and more losses as a starter his rookie year and second year in the league as most QB's dont (see Peyton Manning's 3-13 rookie season) Side note: Charlie ward? Contention 3 does not factor in playoffs, or Rivers first two years on the bench. I concede to 4A but would like to note Cons still does not acknowledge the Playoffs and also that Ben is 8th on that list with a mere 4 points separating them. I also Concede to 4B especially "it doesnt have to be a playoff game for a player to step up" (as clearly this is true especially for players that cant step it up in the playoffs lol) But would like to add Big Ben has 17 4th quarter comebacks to Rivers 11, as well as 21 game winning drives compared to Rivers 14. 4C I see little relevance in so i dont plan on refuting it besides saying not only is leadership(usually shown in the playoffs) immeasurable and intangable but its hardly relevant. In conclusion thus far i propose 1. Con uses presumptions that are more reasonable to assume would have negative effects a opposed to the improbable conclusion she has come up with of a positive effect on Rivers in regards to his playing time as a rookie and 2nd year player. 2. Con shows Philip Rivers regular season stats and winning record as reason for him being great, but blames the coaches and other players for there lack of success in the playoffs, this shows inconsistencies as essentially she is saying, in the regular season he puts up great stats because he is a great quarterback, but in the playoffs he puts up worse stats and doesnt win because he has a bad or insufficient team. This concept does not stand up to reason as he has he same team and coaches in the regular season as he does in the playoffs, yet his stats and winning percentage drop. 3. Con presumes the steelers as a better team then the chargers with better players without a basis for that, and I have presented a basis to show that at the very least they are comparable in team ability and players. 4. con claims Phil have a consistently higher QB rating and passer rating but these are the same thing. 5. Con assumes consistency in Rivers pace for yards this year to the extent of shattering Marino's record for passing yards in a season that in now way can be adequately justified. 6. Con has not contested Ben R. being a better playoff QB or his 2 Superbowl victories. http://www.pro-football-reference.com... will add more