Super Bowl Ring OR Hall of Fame
 

Would you as an NFL player rather:

1) Be a part of a Super Bowl winning team.

or

2) Have a Hall of Fame type career.



There seems to be such an emphasis on how much the NFL is such a TEAM oriented game, but at the same time some NFL players with HOF careers get blasted by the media because of lack of championships.

So, which one is it? What is more important to you?
(as a player, not a fan)

Tony Gonzales

HoF is more exclusive. I'd prefer both, but if I had to pick one I'd go with the Hall of Fame. There is no I in Super Bowl.

If I'm a QB I think I'd rather win a Super Bowl.

Any other position, I'd rather have a HOF career.

My answer as well Rain Man.

There are thousands of Just-Another-Guys walking around with Super Bowl Rings. As a HOF'er you can walk around knowing you are in a very small Elite class.

No but there is some WEed.

I get what you are saying because QB's are unfairly judged...
but You would rather go down in history as Trent Dilfer than Dan Marino?

Charlie Batch has a Super Bowl ring.

If I were the player, I'd rather have the HOF career. As a fan, I'd rather have a team win the Super Bowl than have a player elected to the HOF.

Players routinely sell or pawn SB rings. How many HOF rings do you see on the market?

HOF

HOF means that you got paid generational money.

I don't know...Winning the Super Bowl is the reason to play. I think if you asked Barry Sanders, Jim Kelley or Dan Marino, they might tell you they'd trade their HOF for a Super Bowl win.

But sometimes its not the player's fault they didn't get to the Super Bowl or win it, so I can see both sides of the issue.

You're right. I'd rather have a HOF career no matter what position I played.

Hall of Fame.

Speaking of Dilfer, anybody else tired of him trying to make "Dilfer's dimes" a thing?

This is the correct answer.

If I'm in the Hall of Fame I've probably got a lot of money, or can get some.

Plenty of 3rd-stringers who had to go back to selling insurance have SB rings.

That made me curious, so I looked.

If you believe the provenance, there are a couple of HoF rings for sale.

Willie Wood - Buy it now for $2.5 million LMAO http://www.ebay.com/bhp/hall-of-fame-ring

Emlen Tunnell - Buy it now for $50,000 :hmmm: http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/281015660551?lpid=82

I can't tell if the Super Bowl rings are real, but there are four on ebay where someone's asking a fortune, plus a number of replicas: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=...l+ring&_sop=16

I wasn't aware of this, but thanks to your post I now know about it. I'm going to start making casual references to it in conversation to help it catch on. Thank you.

tough decision

Wait, we talking bags here?

losing the super bowl ring doesn't take away the super bowl victory


many of those SB rings are gaudy looking crap too


wonder how much the Hall of fame rings are worth?

Hall

Hall of Fame. No question. There's so much that's out of your hands as an individual player as far as winning a championship goes.

Dilfer sells dime bags?

I wouldn't want to be a back up and ride the bench to a championship, but I would like to be a contributing factor on a super bowl team. My reasoning is as simple as Herm's. You PLAY to Win the GAME. Think how you would feel, knowing that every year of your career you ultimately failed to reach your goal. Give me the Lombardi.

I would think as a player your goal would be to win a Super Bowl ring and your dream is to earn a Hall of Fame ring. So I would say the HOF ring would mean more.

It's every players goal to win the Superbowl. But you also have to acknowledge as a player that it's not just one player that gets you to the SB or wins it. Look at Tony G. Arguably the best TE to ever play the game....and never came close to a ring. You can't help it if you're stuck on a team that never makes it or has the chance to make it.

I can buy a Super Bowl ring from Pawn Stars.

I can't buy my way into the HOF.

I couldn't agree more, that's why I think the Hall of Fame ring is a bigger deal because it judges the player on his individual merits.

GOAT is more important

A very hard question to answer in the abstract. Are we talking about being third string QB and getting a SB ring? If so, I would take the HOF. Or are we talking about a long, highly paid, multiple pro-bowl career (Steve Atwater comes to mind)--in that case, I take the SB ring.

Sure you can. It's about $20 for adults, $15 for kids. Probably a senior discount.

C'mon, people...would you rather have the career of Dan Marino or some guy who played one year but was the 5th WR on the SB champion?

Tough call, but I think I'd rather be able to say that I helped win it all... a World Champion.

I'd say HOF. I had a student once who was a relief pitcher for the Florida Marlins when they won the World Series. He pitched a few innings in the playoffs, but not the series and still got a ring. Now, he's a Chiropractor and not much else. I think he'd would have much rather have had a HOF-worthy career. I'd say that's valid for most players in team sports. The HOF members are the immortals of the game....championship or not.

Do you think people will remember that Derrick Thomas never played in a Super Bowl, or that he's in the HOF?

I picked Super Bowl.... "that's why you lift all them weights, that's why you do all that shit"

HOF

According to the votes, this is a lot closer of a poll than I thought it would be at this point.


Some of you would rather be a third stringer on a Super Bowl team with a ring than in an Elite club of the greatest of all time... mind boggling.

Pro Bowl appearances
Posted via Mobile Device

Player, hof.
fan, super bowl.
Owner, both, I just care about profits. Hunt.

I would take the HOF career over the SB, no question--the whole SB bench warmer vs Dan Marino thing seems like a no-brainer.

But I think that maybe the people that chose the SB might be better people than us selfish HOFers. Or not smart enough to see the long-term benefits of the HOF career vs. one-time glory that they may not even have played a big part in. One of the two. But they're probably nicer people.

You play for championships. Period. If you do that well enough then hopefully the HOF will follow suit. I doubt a single person in the HOF would admit otherwise..

Let's ask Dan Marino this question.

Yeah, but probably not. Every year 50-some guys get a SB ring. Only a few will get into the HOF.

I'd bet no HOFer without a SB win would trade careers with a bench-warmer who happened to be on a SB winner.

It might have made a slight difference if the poll were Super Bowl MVP or HOF.

WOnder how Larry Brown, Desmond Howard, Deion Branch, Santonio Holmes, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien think?

That's a good way to put it. Every year you have 50+ Super Bowl rings issued and 4 to 7 HoF rings issued.

winning the Super Bowl gets you in the Hall a hell of a lot easier.

He couldn't ever make any of them throws so I don't know why he shows them off?

Get over it Dilfraud.

"Mr. Marino, would you trade your career for Jason Garrett's?"

I'd want to be the first third stringer in the Hall.

Reach for the stars, man.

There's no HOF in TEAM.

There's no H. There's an A. No Ls. No Os or Fs, nor Fs again. There is an A, an M and an E.

So no HOF in TEAM, but 3/4 of TEAM is in HALL OF FAME, which seems like too many guys, really.

Come to think of it, there's not much SUPER BOWL in TEAM either.

Hall of Fame, and it's not even close.

If I was a 1st stringer I think I'd rather have the Super Bowl win. Being part of that would be awesome.

If it was between say, a SB win as a 3rd stringer or a HOF career, I'd go with the HOF.

This,

I've always hated the "Dan Marino sucks cause he never won the Super Bowl" arguement. Like I've hated the "Jim Kelly is a better QB than Marino because of the rings" or any QB because of the rings, arguements.

It is a team game, the best player at any position could win nothing if the team doesn't win. I hate team accolades contributing to individual awards. It should be nothing but a separator from similar stats, not the first gauge in measuring success.

Case in point, Brady won more SBs (not lately) but if you think Brady is a better QB than Payton, you're a slave to peter king and/or espn. If you think elway or Kelly were better QBs than Marino, your and idiot.

If you watched Jim Kelly play and thought he was a better QB than Marino Aikman or Elway then I don't care to hear your football takes.

Brady was and is better than Payed-a-Ton because in big games he was clutch. When his team needed pts to win he drove his team down the field and got them.

Payed-a-ton not only lost big games but many were lost because of him and his poor play.

Kelly and Manning are more similar than you'd like to think...

Respectfully disagree. I've seen both play, Kelly was more product of offense in a run oriented era, manning is an OC on the field. If manning had Thurman Thomas and that O omg with the bills D, he would have been crowned god.

It's a team game. Should have more weight in deciding greatness than just stats or rings.

And I actually hate manning

You mean like Faulk/James and Harrison?

Kelly was king of the no huddle and able to read and distribute on the fly. Just like Payed-a-ton.

I agree.

Yeah but how does Kelly's defense rank against Payton's in said years?

HOF

I'd probably rank Kelly second in that group. Maybe third. He and Aikman would be pretty close.

The obvious answer is HOF. There was no condition that as part of the SB champion team that they would even be a top contributor. Anybody want Chris Redman's ring?

Kelly played great in the playoffs.

Payed-a-ton has a career even record.

Payed-a-Ton played for defensive coaches his entire career. He's NEVER had an offensive HC.

If anything the odds were stacked in his favor...

HOF

HOF. Easy.