Super Bowl Ring or Hall of Fame?

[NOLAnuffsaid]

HoF no question!!!

Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring. Dan Marino is in the HoF. give me Marino all day. i want to be remembered with the all-time greats. Super Bowl rings cements a season. HoF cements your CAREER!!!!

[IceHot]

Could you imagine being Bruce Matthews a Hall of Famer that was only inches away from winning a SB, but denied?

Or even Jim Kelly getting there what 4 times and not winning?

[BOOBOO]

hof.

you were one of the greatest to play the game


ring


you were on a great team

[thefifthwall]

HOF bust shows you were one of the best & recently you're making big bucks.
Many back ups have SB rings and still must look for work after football.

[Twyst]

Ring. Shocked so many people feel differently. If you want individual accolades you should play an individual sport, not football. Furthermore, I wouldnt even want anyone on my team who was more concerned with the HoF than winning a championship.

[KingOfBattle]

SB ring...you play to win the game

[SaintsJunkie]

superbowl ring goes to bench players and coaches, hall of fame means you made lots of money and were a very good player for a while, i would take that

[Uk Saint]

Hall of fame- your a legend of the game not just one season... To be a hall of famer on a team which didnt win a ring means you whould have been a franchise player and go down as a legend of the team aswell and be remembered by those fans

Also as a coach i can join a top team and get a superbowl ring

[livefromDC]

Originally Posted by Twyst

Ring. Shocked so many people feel differently. If you want individual accolades you should play an individual sport, not football. Furthermore, I wouldnt even want anyone on my team who was more concerned with the HoF than winning a championship.

You're basically saying that players that strive for greatness are being selfish. I would love to be on a team where all the players are playing to be one of the best ever at their respective positions. If by reaching for greatness, you turn out to be only good; you have helped your team. If by reaching for greatness, you become great; you have helped your team immensely. You have done your job. That's what team sports are about. Everyone has to do their job well. Championships start with personal accountability. You can't get to the Hall of Fame without doing the things that make you great at your position. That's personal accountability at its finest.

You can walk blind, barefoot, and backwards onto a superbowl winning team and receive a ring. What does it mean when you would accept a ring over the Hall of Fame? To me, it doesn't say you value the team despite personal achievements. It says you value the team OVER personal achievements. These are two different things. Everyone would love to have both, that's a given. But I'm weary of anyone who would take reward over measure. As a professional athlete, you should WANT to be the best every time your number is called. You should strive to have people remember you for doing what you did better than anyone else. You should hope that those that come after you are forever compared to you. You should aim to be remembered by teammates as "the best I ever played with". THIS is a respectable goal. Anyone who tells me that they would choose reward over personal accomplishment doesn't have their priorities in order. Choosing the ring over the Hall of Fame is just that. As the question is posed, "Super Bowl Ring or Hall of Fame?", it means that you would take the ring in whatever capacity you could obtain it over being a highly productive player and teammate. Being a Hall of Famer is not just a personal accolade, its being an impactful member of the team. The two ideas are inseparable as accomplishing the first means you have done the second.

You can win a Superbowl without being a contributor. You can not be a Hall of Famer without being a contributor. No amount of arguing will convince me that a ring seeker is more team-oriented or more concerned about the team than the guy busting his butt to be one of the greatest of all time. Give me the Hall of Fame every time, and if God's is willing perhaps I'll get a ring too.

[antipop]

Originally Posted by livefromDC

You can win a Superbowl without being a contributor. You can not be a Hall of Famer without being a contributor.

this is the problem with this argument

are we talking about being a second string QB getting a ring versus being a starting QB going to the HOF with no ring??

that's a pretty silly argument with an obvious answer

or are we talking about someone who actually had a role in winning a SB versus going to the HOF without a ring?

the point of playing any sport is to win the whole thing

[lades]

Hello?!!!... You play to win the game!

[livefromDC]

Originally Posted by antipop

this is the problem with this argument

are we talking about being a second string QB getting a ring versus a starting QB going to the HOF with no ring??

that's a pretty silly argument with an obvious answer

or are we talking about someone who actually had a role in winning a SB versus going to the HOF without a ring?

No its not the problem with the argument. It's only a problem if you're willing to settle for a lesser role on a Superbowl winning team. The question asks straight up, "Super Bowl Ring or Hall of Fame".

If you have a problem answering the question its because you're trying to rationalize giving anything besides the best in pursuit of a reward. The problem is that because you value the reward so much YOU have to decide what can you live with as you willingly select reward over personal accountability. You're making more hypothesis so as to avoid the bare bones reality of the question; will I take a ring over the Hall of Fame. If you DON'T answer Hall of Fame, it means you WOULD be okay being the second string QB or a practice squad member. Again going back to the question, you would take the ring over the bust without stipulation. Taking the bust means you have accomplished great things as part of your team. Taking the ring means you may have accomplished nothing as part of your team and you're okay with that. That's why I think the choice is easy.

Originally Posted by antipop

the point of playing any sport is to win the whole thing

By picking winning a ring (its inherent to the question that this means in any capacity), you have made that abundantly clear. Which is to say winning is more important than personal accountability for some of us.

[Saints318]

Does this assume your wealth is the same either way? Cause otherwise I would pick the one that makes me richer which is likely the HOF route.

[antipop]

Originally Posted by livefromDC

No its not the problem with the argument. It's only a problem if you're willing to settle for a lesser role on a Superbowl winning team. The question asks straight up, "Super Bowl Ring or Hall of Fame".

If you have a problem answering the question its because you're trying to rationalize giving anything besides the best in pursuit of a reward. The problem is that because you value the reward so much YOU have to decide what can you live with as you willingly select reward over personal accountability. You're making more hypothesis so as to avoid the bare bones reality of the question; will I take a ring over the Hall of Fame. If you DON'T answer Hall of Fame, it means you WOULD be okay being the second string QB or a practice squad member. Again going back to the question, you would take the ring over the bust without stipulation. Taking the bust means you have accomplished great things as part of your team. Taking the ring means you may have accomplished nothing as part of your team and you're okay with that. That's why I think the choice is easy.

well, like i said, it's a silly argument with an obvious answer

basically you are asking if someone would rather be a bench warmer or a HOF caliber player

[Sproles-Royce]

To add to this Trent Dilfer said he'd rather have Marino's career than his...so take that for what its worth.