Superbowl Ring or Hall of Fame?

[July 4 1776]

Ladainian Tomlinson say that a HOF Bust is better and would rather be a "Hall of Fame player without a ring, because you’ve got to sacrifice so much individually just to be good. They draft you individually and you’ve got to back them up and make them right.” Tomlinson claims that individual accomplishments because its harder to be great in the NFL than to win a ring.

Teddy Brushci says a Superbowl Ring is better and would rather win “A Super Bowl, a championship is something you earn, And it’s something that can never be taken away. And no one can stop you from doing that.” Brushci claims that the HOF is decided by 44 guys while a ring is decided on the field.

Obviously both men are biased because Tomlinson has the HOF career with no rings and Brushci has the rings but no HOF career.

Which one would you guys rather have?

Me personally I think the ring is the the better thing to have, because no matter how good your career is without a ring your always gonna be the "best without a ring" instead of one of the best. Just ask Lebron what he wanted more.

 

[padman59]

I'd choose the Hall of Fame as it shows you've been one of the best on the field at your position for a good length of time.

Having a Super Bowl ring doesn't make you one of the best, and there are plenty of players on Super Bowl winning teams whose careers amount to shit.

 

[KNUBB]

I'd choose the Hall of Fame as it shows you've been one of the best on the field at your position for a good length of time.

Having a Super Bowl ring doesn't make you one of the best, and there are plenty of players on Super Bowl winning teams whose careers amount to shit.

David Tyree

 

[EmpireWF]

I'd say you don't need to have a HOF career to be known as a great player....but you definitely need a championship to be considered a winner.

Now you can say that so many unintentional, crazy things can lead to a team winning a championship but to have a HOF career, you need year-in year-out stability. True, but still, not having a championship has got to be the most unfulfilling feeling in sports (after you take your daily swim in your pile of money).

Besides, hall of fames are so political.

 

[MVPete]

Terrell Thomas

 

[EmpireWF]

Then again, looking at it from the perspective of one of the roleplayers. Fuck winning it all if it means your shelf life is maybe a handful of years. Take the HOF career and all the money and security that comes with it.

 

[krulmichael]

This is actually a tough question. I think I'd have to be selfish here and say the Hall of Fame. Like padman said, being in the HoF proves that you're one of the best to be on the field (or at the very least, above average...depending on your position). Sure, a SB ring would be great too, but people won't remember you for a ring as much as they would for being in the HoF. 53 players receive a SB ring every year and honestly, unless you're a QB, winning a ring doesn't seem to define your career as much. This is about legacy. Having a bust made of yourself and put into the HoF will be around forever and a legacy is all about being remembered decades and even centuries down the road.

 

[Rudi]

Personally I would want to have a ring. The ultimate goal is to win a Championship so that is what I would want. I can def see the other side of it though because making the Hall of Fame shows that you were really fucking good for a really long time. I have no problem being that role player that doesn't do too much but still gets a ring. Hell, even being a backup QB on a Super Bowl winning squad would be enough for me

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Lots of legitimate JAGs have rings...that don't make them great.
Lots of legitimate greats don't have rings...yet they are still great.

Bruschi is never getting into the Hall of Fame...so he'll say it was more important for him to be a champion.
Tomlinson is never getting a ring...so he'll say it was more important for him to be a Hall of Famer.

Two guys that are reconciling with themselves, after their playing days are over, that they left something unaccomplished during their playing days...its all apart of the process of stepping away from the game and into real life.

Me personally?

Hall of Fame bust...that cements your immortality in the sport. If you are a Hall of Famer, you as an individual will be remembered forever. Everyone will remember the team you apart of as a champion, but you, yourself, will never be remembered. If TB wasn't on ESPN everyday, he would have already been forgotten about and/or simply been that guy that had a stroke and came back and played and TB had a helluva career, too...but he'll never be regarded in the same breath as Tomlinson nor will he be mentioned when the Patriots dynasty is mentioned.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Personally I would want to have a ring. The ultimate goal is to win a Championship so that is what I would want. I can def see the other side of it though because making the Hall of Fame shows that you were really fucking good for a really long time. I have no problem being that role player that doesn't do too much but still gets a ring. Hell, even being a backup QB on a Super Bowl winning squad would be enough for me

Lots of athletes say this...only a small fraction of them mean it...championship aspirations come after getting paid, honestly, I'd reckon that championship aspirations come after not only getting paid, but becoming great individually...why else do you see 99% of ring-less great athletes jump ship to contenders late in their careers...it is after they acquire a lot of money and go as far as they could as an individual that they desire one last thing...a championship. You don't see players win a title than attempt to break records. Its typically the other way around.

 

[ralaw]

I think a better question would have been would you rather be a role player on a championship team (Dilfer) or a HOFer on an above average team (Marino)?
I pick HOFer........a championship means something in the moment, but 20 years from now people won't remember. We remember HOFers.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

Winning a championship is mostly luck, being on the right team at the right time. Having a hall of fame career is earned and a greater accomplishment.

 

[seaplus]

SB ring ... and then i'd sell it

 

[shag773]

The main reason you play sports, at least it should be, is to win games. You play to win championships. I think the HOF is great because it recognizes athletes who greatly contributed to the sport they played in. But it shouldn't be more important then winning a championship. For me a good player who contributed in multiple championship seasons holds more weight than a HOF who didn't win anything.

 

[Maynard]

i wonder how dan marino would answer

 

[Senser81]

Shag said that the main reason to play sports is to win games, but I would disagree. From my personal perspective, my goal when I played sports was to play as well as I possibly could. That was the one thing I could control. I'm still that way now. I do everything I can to win, but I also understand that sometimes things don't work out as you had planned.

I think a HOF bust would be more fulfilling than a Super Bowl ring, because a HOF bust is more of a personal honor. Sure, its political like Empire said, but I think being a HOFer is still the top honor you can earn. There are so many other outside factors that go into winning a Super Bowl ring.

Bruschi sounds like the guy who doesn't have any money, and goes around saying "Money isn't everything".

 

[EmpireWF]

The main reason you play sports, at least it should be, is to win games. You play to win championships.

Okay, Herm.

 

[bucky]

During an athletes playing days, they definitely answer championship(s). After a player retires, priorities change. Then HOF starts becoming more important.

Honestly, If I were a HOF caliber athlete, and asked this question during my playing days, I would answer championships. After retiring, especially with no rings, my answer is definitely HOF. Looking back on a career, HOF means you were a very special player. Championship(s) mean it was a special team.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

50 something guys a year walk home with a ring.
3-5 guys a year get into the HOF.

A SB ring is absolutely meaningless if you weren't a key part of it. You know Drew Bledsoe has a ring right ? But everytime he looks down it says "Im Tom Bradys".

Id pick HOF without hesitation. That said... You have to remember how important memories and comradery are to these guys. Being part of a team that made a championship run is truly something special , likely hood is that year will stick out in your head for the rest of your life. If you played a roll in it , and avoid the silly cliches of "my childs birth! my wedding day!" itll be the most important and memorable day of your life.

To give it a different perspective roughly 275 players are in the HOF. Only 46 "teams" have won a title. If you identify yourself and your career that way its very easy to make it the rarest thing in the sport.


P. S Considering how little LT did when his team was on the verge of championship id pick HOF too.:med:

 

[Houston]

If I was 60 and retired from the NFL with nothing. I'd be more jealous of my friend with a ring, then the one in the HOF.


A ring is something that you earn with not only the players but the coaches that you've been working and going to battle with since training camp. And the whole city/fan base celebrates it with you. Also getting into the HOF is something that only a few players even think about, while getting a superbowl ring is something that the entire league guns for. It's what every player wants most in the present. I'd much rather get a ring in the prime of my career, then to get inducted into the HOF years after I'm done playing.