Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   Pro Football (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   How important are rings? (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6396)

Belish 04-12-2007 12:50 PM

How important are rings?
 
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.

JK17 04-12-2007 12:52 PM

Mainly because, the Quarterback is the leader of the team. He gets all the credit, and all the blame(more or less) for a team's success or failures. Therefore, he is only considered great when he takes his team to the championship. Runningbacks don't have the same amount of control over a team as a quarterback does, so with the leadership and control, comes the responsibility to win a championship.

LionSmack 04-12-2007 12:57 PM

^ What he said.

Splat 04-12-2007 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belish (Post 298379)
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.

Good post I don't think it is really fair it takes a team to win a SB not just a QB.

JK17 04-12-2007 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splat420 (Post 298463)
Good post I don't think it is really fair it takes a team to win a SB not just a QB.

It takes a team to win a Super Bowl, but the Quarterback is always (well usually) the one who gets the credit for the win, or blame for the loss however. Because they have so much responsibility in getting the team there, they are judged by how often they do it, and come out successful.

It's not fair, but with the role the Quarterback plays, it will not change any time soon.

princefielder28 04-12-2007 02:31 PM

They define a career away from the stats

Shiver 04-12-2007 02:33 PM

Dan Marino took the Dolphins to the Super Bowl, and his TEAM got beaten by the superior TEAM.

gbpackers0065 04-12-2007 06:58 PM



Does that answer your question?

Ewing 04-12-2007 07:52 PM

The ring arguement is the biggest load of crap because using that logic Trent Dilfer is a better quarterback than either Dan Marino or Warren Moon.

JK17 04-12-2007 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ewing (Post 299716)
The ring arguement is the biggest load of crap because using that logic Trent Dilfer is a better quarterback than either Dan Marino or Warren Moon.

Well, I don't think anyone is saying rings are the only way to judge a QB. I don't agree with people using them to judge QBs at all, but there are some reasons to do that, since they represent the entire team as leaders. Should the rings be used to justify Dilfer over Marino? No, but it does reflect well on Dilfer that he managed to win a big game.

It's just a piece of the puzzle, that is a lot bigger than it should be, but is still there.

Pit Bull #53 04-12-2007 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ewing (Post 299716)
The ring arguement is the biggest load of crap because using that logic Trent Dilfer is a better quarterback than either Dan Marino or Warren Moon.

Yeah, that's if you're just taking it as a stand-alone measuring point though. The ring argument should go hand-in-hand with play on the field over a career. Obviously no one would take Dilfer over Marino, but I think it holds more weight when comparing players with similar careers.

Jay 04-12-2007 09:12 PM

I agree with a lot of what has already been said.

But to expand on it, the reason for the lack of non-ring baring QB's in the Hall Of Fame is because QB is the most scrutinized position in the NFL, and it always has and will be. If a guy isn't winning, he's not going to get many chances before a team decides to move on with someone else. Unless you are an elite talent like a Dan Marino or a Warren Moon, where you are undeniably the best option your team has at QB moving forward, you're not going to have much job security.

That said, how many people without rings are really in the same league as Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, etc? Jim Kelly went to four straight Super Bowls. Marino was one of the top two or three to ever play the game, and also led his team to the big game. I can't think of many guys who can compare to what those guys did on the field that aren't in the Hall and don't have rings.

With RB's and WR's, it's easier to put up huge numbers and not have to look over you shoulder if you're not producing. But Barry Sanders and OJ Simpson were record setters. Thurman Thomas went to four Super Bowls. All those guys accomplished a lot in this game...

TheChampIsHere 04-14-2007 06:22 PM

Yeah, it is maybe somewhat exageratted that the QB gets so much credit for winning the SB or his career is frowned upon if he doesnt win one. But he is the leader of the team and the most important player.

Dam8610 04-14-2007 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay (Post 300021)
But to expand on it, the reason for the lack of non-ring baring QB's in the Hall Of Fame

Huh? The great QBs without championships (see: Y.A. Tittle, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Warren Moon) are Hall of Famers. Championships are an overused argument, but at least the Hall of Fame committee can see past a great player not having them. Now if they could only see past mediocre players having them...

255979119 04-14-2007 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 305379)
Huh? The great QBs without championships (see: Y.A. Tittle, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Warren Moon) are Hall of Famers. Championships are an overused argument, but at least the Hall of Fame committee can see past a great player not having them. Now if they could only see past mediocre players having them...

What mediocre players with rings might you be speaking of?

RaiderNation 04-14-2007 07:27 PM

very important but there not everything

MP123 04-14-2007 07:40 PM

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.

Dam8610 04-14-2007 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 255979119 (Post 305419)
What mediocre players with rings might you be speaking of?

Terry Bradshaw and Joe Namath are the two most oustanding examples...

Xonraider 04-14-2007 08:23 PM

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

mfkrush 04-14-2007 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belish (Post 298379)
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!

Billingsley26 04-14-2007 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xonraider (Post 305647)
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.

Xonraider 04-14-2007 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billingsley26 (Post 305870)
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?

Dam8610 04-14-2007 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billingsley26 (Post 305870)
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 Legend 04-14-2007 11:06 PM

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

because of the media now a days

Finsfan79 04-15-2007 12:59 AM

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?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.