A lot of readers had a lot of questions about a recent column, one that ostensibly asked whether the Eagles were trying to win a Super Bowl or trying, first and foremost, to make Carson Wentz a star. A lot of readers also had a lot of things to say about the column that I can't repeat here. It's enough to say that they were … displeased. This is Philadelphia. Such is life. But it's worth providing a deeper look at the question, just for the sake of clarity and thoroughness.

There were two primary complaints in response to the column: 1) Linking the Eagles' Wentz-centric player-personnel decisions so far this offseason to their marketing strategy is too great a leap to make. 2) The question's answer was self-evident. "It's silly to bemoan the Eagles' going out of their way to help and promote Wentz. Helping Wentz is the surest way for them to win a Super Bowl, and if the Eagles win a Super Bowl, Wentz will be a star. Duh. And they pay you for writing this bovine excrement? This is the logic thread we need to untangle.Of course, if a quarterback wins a Super Bowl, he will become a star. He will get more opportunities to appear in movies and TV shows and commercials. He will earn more endorsement dollars. He'll sell more jerseys. He'll go to Disney World, or at least tell the world that he's going. But that easy connection often leads to a kind of circular reasoning that never gets to the heart of what is really required to build a football team capable of winning a championship."To win a Super Bowl, you need a star quarterback.How do you define a "star quarterback?"A quarterback who has won a Super Bowl.Sigh …Really, though, that entire discussion is beside the point. The point is that there's a difference between building a team that can actually win a Super Bowl and "making things easier for the quarterback," and it's fair to wonder, based on another offseason of upheaval and their eagerness to capitalize on Wentz's popularity, whether the Eagles understand that. Yes, four quarterbacks - Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton and Eli Manning - have combined to win 10 of the last 16 Super Bowls.But their triumphs and those of a few other teams make a compelling case that it's vitally important to have an infrastructure in place that allows a quarterback to flourish. In truth, that infrastructure - a staff of executives, scouts, and coaches who know what they're looking for and are smart about acquiring, developing, and replenishing talent in a salary-cap league - seems the most important factor in a team's Super Bowl chances.In 2001, for instance, Brady was not the demigod then that he is now. He was a cog in a Patriots team that had Bill Belichick, a terrific defense and special teams, and that won three straight playoff games without scoring more than one offensive touchdown in any of them.Ahead of the 2005 season, the Steelers had previously been a playoff team with Tommy Maddox and Kordell Stewart as their starting quarterbacks. Then Roethlisberger, who proved an obvious upgrade, took over, and within two years, they were celebrating the franchise's fifth Super Bowl victory.Similarly, the Ravens had gone to the playoffs with Trent Dilfer, Elvis Grbac, Anthony Wright, and an aging Steve McNair before Joe Flacco arrived.Eli Manning needed Michael Strahan, Justin Tuck, Jason Pierre-Paul, and a strong pass rush to upset the Patriots twice, and even with Eli and, later, that infamous quarterback-helper Odell Beckham, the Giants missed the playoffs four consecutive seasons before upgrading their defense last year.The Seahawks already had an elite defense before Russell Wilson became their starter. When Peyton Manning won his second Super Bowl, with Denver after the 2015 season, he was by then an empty husk of the player he had once been. That Broncos team had a genuinely great defense and enough talent and stability on offense to alleviate having Brock Osweiler and that decaying iteration of Manning share time under center.Understand: I'm not suggesting that Brady, Peyton Manning, Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees aren't great quarterbacks. I'm suggesting that Matt Ryan, Andrew Luck, Matthew Stafford, and Philip Rivers are, too, and that there's a reason, until Ryan and the Falcons threw up all over themselves in Houston on Feb. 5, that none of them had come all that close to winning a Super Bowl.Now, consider the Eagles, who since the 2011 lockout have hardly been a model of stability and consistency. Their plan was to target and acquire Wentz and build the rest of their team around him. I just doubt that they have a similar infrastructure in place and that they're likely to construct one.Their drafting record under Howie Roseman is spotty at best, and they've shown no recent inclination to hoard picks to mitigate that spotty decision-making. They have major holes on defense and, still, on offense. Yet people seem to think that 1) signing a couple of WRs to one-year contracts and drafting a couple of cornerbacks next month will be enough to get the renaissance started, and 2) having a prospective franchise quarterback has no bearing on the business side of an NFL franchise - which, if you know anything about the league's history, really is the side that matters most.Maybe this will all work out for them. Wentz has terrific potential, and maybe he'll turn out to be as good as Brady or Peyton or Rodgers - you know, three of the five or six best quarterbacks in NFL history.That's a big hope, but the Eagles are happy to have everyone revel in it now, and if they can sell a few more jerseys along the way, all the better.