Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How important are rings?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    very important but there not everything


    "Just Win Baby"- Al Davis
    @SirStackAlot707

    Comment


    • #17
      Very important. That's why they play the game. Fun factors in to. But, if was was all about fun, they wouldn't be playing in the NFL.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 255979119 View Post
        What mediocre players with rings might you be speaking of?
        Terry Bradshaw and Joe Namath are the two most oustanding examples...


        The problem arises when people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support instead of illumination.

        If luck is where preparation meets opportunity, then clutch is where failure meets luck.

        <Add1ct> setting myself on fire can't be that hard
        <Add1ct> but tackling a mosquito might prove a challenge

        Comment


        • #19
          Even though a QB is the leader of a team, a super bowl is won by every single person who is part of the team. From the fans to the players, the coaches and the front office included. I don't think rings should be considered something crucial when deciding who enters the HOF, nor do I think it should be considered a reason as to why someone didn't make it. Of course, it is a pro if done, but not a con if not.

          Just my 2 cents

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Belish View Post
            Am I the only one who finds a double standard between quarterbacks and everyone else when it comes to the importance of championships?

            Why is it that in order to be considered an all-time great at QB, one has to win a championship? There are many Hall-of-Fame type RBs and WRs who never won a championship (Barry Sanders, O.J., Thurman Thomas, Cris Carter, Tim Brown, Steve Largent...etc.) that are still considered among the greatest of all time, but there's only a handful of HOF QBs (in the Super Bowl era) who never won a championship (Tarkenton, Moon, Marino, Kelly, Fouts...there might be a couple more).

            My argument isn't exactly complete; I just wanted to get the thought out there.
            I find logic in the arguement. Trent Dilfer is way better then Dan Marino. Look at his ring finger!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Xonraider View Post
              Even though a QB is the leader of a team, a super bowl is won by every single person who is part of the team. From the fans to the players, the coaches and the front office included. I don't think rings should be considered something crucial when deciding who enters the HOF, nor do I think it should be considered a reason as to why someone didn't make it. Of course, it is a pro if done, but not a con if not.

              Just my 2 cents
              Are you joking? How can one be defined as one of the greatest, when they havent even beaten the greatest of that year, let alone of all time? They need a ring in my mind to be consdiered as one of the best no doubt. Having the ring proves that not only were they awesome at their position, they beat the best team in the league to win the championship.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Billingsley26 View Post
                Are you joking? How can one be defined as one of the greatest, when they havent even beaten the greatest of that year, let alone of all time? They need a ring in my mind to be consdiered as one of the best no doubt. Having the ring proves that not only were they awesome at their position, they beat the best team in the league to win the championship.
                Is that one single player doing everything for their team?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Billingsley26 View Post
                  Are you joking? How can one be defined as one of the greatest, when they havent even beaten the greatest of that year, let alone of all time? They need a ring in my mind to be consdiered as one of the best no doubt. Having the ring proves that not only were they awesome at their position, they beat the best team in the league to win the championship.
                  If individuals could win championships, Y.A. Tittle, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, and Jim Kelly would all have rings, and Peyton Manning would have more than one.


                  The problem arises when people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support instead of illumination.

                  If luck is where preparation meets opportunity, then clutch is where failure meets luck.

                  <Add1ct> setting myself on fire can't be that hard
                  <Add1ct> but tackling a mosquito might prove a challenge

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    i belive that rings mean more to a quarterback then alot of other players

                    because of the media now a days

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      It is a team game, this is a great post because it is always forgotten. The key is how a team preforms and what teams have around players.


                      The best player on the 49ers teams in the 80s wasnt the QB it was Jerry Rice. He made Steve Young great as well.

                      Jim Brown is the greatest running back of all time, and best football player of all time but he doesnt have a ring.

                      Barry Sanders is the second best running back of all time and he doesnt because he had nothing with him to work with pretty much.


                      Gale Sayers and Dick Butkus are two of the greatest ever but dont have rings.

                      Yet system QBs like Aikman, Brady and Bradshaw have 3-4.

                      People forget that it is players around the QB that often make the team.

                      Aikman = Irvin
                      Bradshaw = Swan, Harris, and a great defense
                      Brady = A great defense (had 1 TD in the whole playoffs the first year and multiple INTs, and has ended 2 years in a row for the pats now with INTs)

                      My point is that QBs are indeed over placed with the blame or considered emphasis.

                      Heck would Elway not be a good QB if he never had Terrell Davis?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Billingsley26 View Post
                        Are you joking? How can one be defined as one of the greatest, when they havent even beaten the greatest of that year, let alone of all time? They need a ring in my mind to be consdiered as one of the best no doubt. Having the ring proves that not only were they awesome at their position, they beat the best team in the league to win the championship.
                        So in your opinion Dan Marino isn't one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          It's because the QB is the main event. He's the guy who controls the entire game. Many times, the success of a team rides on the success of their QB. You mentioned that only a few greats have not won a championship, that's usually because if a QB is that good, he'll find a way to win it. WRs and RBs, howver, don't have the same control over the game that QBs have.

                          BoneKrusher

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Staubach12 View Post
                            It's because the QB is the main event. He's the guy who controls the entire game. Many times, the success of a team rides on the success of their QB. You mentioned that only a few greats have not won a championship, that's usually because if a QB is that good, he'll find a way to win it. WRs and RBs, howver, don't have the same control over the game that QBs have.
                            No, no, no. I'm sorry but, teams... teams win championships. Marino is better than Aikman in every aspect but, Aikman won three rings... that doesnt make Aikman better, he was on a extemely stacked team with an owner that would spend insane amounts of money to win. When it comes to comparing players... QBs especially, rings are grossly overrated.

                            Thanks BoneKrusher^

                            http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_j52DziMy4 (the man)
                            http://youtube.com/watch?v=2g6S3Anto7c
                            KO KNOWS

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Finsfan79 View Post
                              It is a team game, this is a great post because it is always forgotten. The key is how a team preforms and what teams have around players.


                              The best player on the 49ers teams in the 80s wasnt the QB it was Jerry Rice. He made Steve Young great as well.

                              Jim Brown is the greatest running back of all time, and best football player of all time but he doesnt have a ring.

                              Barry Sanders is the second best running back of all time and he doesnt because he had nothing with him to work with pretty much.


                              Gale Sayers and Dick Butkus are two of the greatest ever but dont have rings.

                              Yet system QBs like Aikman, Brady and Bradshaw have 3-4.

                              People forget that it is players around the QB that often make the team.

                              Aikman = Irvin
                              Bradshaw = Swan, Harris, and a great defense
                              Brady = A great defense (had 1 TD in the whole playoffs the first year and multiple INTs, and has ended 2 years in a row for the pats now with INTs)

                              My point is that QBs are indeed over placed with the blame or considered emphasis.

                              Heck would Elway not be a good QB if he never had Terrell Davis?

                              Thats pretty tough to say. Did you ever think that maybe if Jerry Rice went somewhere else, with his slow 40 speed, he would've been what he was? How about the fact that Elway's passing opened up the doors for Terrel Davis to run the ball successfully? Or Tom Brady who when he lead the winning drive against the Rams had the likes of JR Redmond, Anotoine Smith, David Patten and Jermaine Wiggins working with him? The QB makes others look good around him, as do the others make the QB look good.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Ewing View Post
                                So in your opinion Dan Marino isn't one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time?
                                Marino is one of the best of all time..but he can't be considered for THE greatest of all time. Sure his stats mean something, but thats it...just SOMETHING. You need the ring to be the best.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information