HOF or FOH i want that ring
Options
Matt-
Members Posts: 21,585 ✭✭✭✭✭
Tomlinson recently said that he wouldn't trade his HOF career for a ring. Before Jordan ever won a ring, he even said that a championship wouldn't be needed to validate his career. I heard Rick Barry on the radio saying that he didn't need that title in '75 in order to call his career a success.
if you had to choose, would you rather have a hall of fame career and no rings or an average career and at least one title, regardless of sport?
And how do you feel about people who say that certain players need a ring to validate their careers when in fact thats not true at all
Comments
-
HOF means you're the best of the best....the elite of your profession
Adam Morrison has a ring.....no contest -
HOF is more important look at charles barkley for all the example u need.
-
adam morrison hasn't had an average nba career so i don't know why his name is brought into it.
-
This is a tough question. I mean who do we remember Dan Marino or Trent Dilfer? Do we remember Warren Moon or Brad Johnson? You figure you play the game to be a champion and that's is what every players wants but if it doesn't happen and you end up having a hall of fame career then your career is validated in my opinion. Your career is missing something and when it comes to all time arguments it should be brought up that a guy does or doesn't have any rings. But having a hall of fame career can't be replaced. Are we going to remember LT or Joseph Addai?
-
I was trying to say that being part of an elite group>>>>> being part of a group of the Morrison's or eddy curry's of the world
-
This is a tough question. I mean who do we remember Dan Marino or Trent Dilfer? Do we remember Warren Moon or Brad Johnson? You figure you play the game to be a champion and that's is what every players wants but if it doesn't happen and you end up having a hall of fame career then your career is validated in my opinion. Your career is missing something and when it comes to all time arguments it should be brought up that a guy does or doesn't have any rings. But having a hall of fame career can't be replaced. Are we going to remember LT or Joseph Addai?
i think that's true with some, but i also think alot of players play to be the best at their profession. and winning or not winning a super bowl, world series, nba championship doesn't make them any better or worse imo. like with the Dilfer and Addai examples, being a champ doesn't necessarily mean great. So to me, if that rule isn't gonna be applied to the mediocre players then it shouldn't be applied to the elite players either. -
^^^^ If you play to be the best and claim your the best why can't you win a championship?
-
its amazing that more pressure is put on players in team sports than they are on players from individual sports like golf, nascar, and tennis. The whole championship thing with nba and nfl players especially is simple-minded and often just outright trolling hoping to make another person mad or for networks/websites/magazines to get people to read or watch. Your forefathers - Skip and Stephen A and people from Around the Horn - have raised so many people and morphed their brains to think one way.
-
^^^^ If you play to be the best and claim your the best why can't you win a championship?
because there are so many other factors that go into winning championships in team sports. its more than a certain player being great. -
You need both.The super elite are all HOF with rings.Kobe,Jordan,Brady and Montana.Making it into the HOF is easy compared to winning a championship.Only suckas settle for just making it into the HOF and Lanolium is a sucka.
-
I'd rather be an ALL TIME Great... I mean at the end of the day people will always remember who you are ala Barkley, Marino, T.O., Earl Campbell, Bonds, etc. Those dudes are immortals in their respective sports, is Trent Dilfer?
-
would you rather have charles barkley or robert horry on your team? exactly
-
i think making it into the hall of fame is much much harder than winning a championship.
a title is only difficult in the sense that so much can be out of 1 players control. especially in a superbowl, a 1 game title. a player is also dependant on 20+ other guys. not to mention how much luck factors in. a player can win championships for so many other reasons other than being great. conversely, players can not win championships for reason completely unrelated to greatness.
-
You need both.The super elite are all HOF with rings.Kobe,Jordan,Brady and Montana.Making it into the HOF is easy compared to winning a championship.Only suckas settle for just making it into the HOF and Lanolium is a sucka.
But sometime circumstances prevent that... in Football a running back is NOT gonna lead his team to a Super Bowl. He'd need a great QB, and at least 1 Elite receiver. LT never really had that in SD. A defensive unit can drag a team to the SB (see Tampa and Baltimore) but it's much harder to be a RB and lead your team to a Super Bowl. Word to Barry Sanders, Earl Campbell, Eric Dickerson and OJ. -
This is a tough question. I mean who do we remember Dan Marino or Trent Dilfer? Do we remember Warren Moon or Brad Johnson? You figure you play the game to be a champion and that's is what every players wants but if it doesn't happen and you end up having a hall of fame career then your career is validated in my opinion. Your career is missing something and when it comes to all time arguments it should be brought up that a guy does or doesn't have any rings. But having a hall of fame career can't be replaced. Are we going to remember LT or Joseph Addai?
i think that's true with some, but i also think alot of players play to be the best at their profession. and winning or not winning a super bowl, world series, nba championship doesn't make them any better or worse imo. like with the Dilfer and Addai examples, being a champ doesn't necessarily mean great. So to me, if that rule isn't gonna be applied to the mediocre players then it shouldn't be applied to the elite players either.
I think most guys who are HOF type of players do play to be the best at their profession. And with that their is an assumption that you should win titles. So when a guy is on his way to elite status and has yet to get that ring more pressure and scrutiny is placed on that player. It all depends on each argument to a certain degree when dealing with elite players. If Lebron ends up with 4 rings the 1st thing ppl when say in comparison to MJ is that he has 6 rings. It's just the way it is -
read my post.All time great = ring + HOF.As for Dilfer,the fact that we still talk about him makes him have a place in history because he has a ring.I'd rather be an ALL TIME Great... I mean at the end of the day people will always remember who you are ala Barkley, Marino, T.O., Earl Campbell, Bonds, etc. Those dudes are immortals in their respective sports, is Trent Dilfer?
-
read my post.All time great = ring + HOF.As for Dilfer,the fact that we still talk about him makes him have a place in history because he has a ring.I'd rather be an ALL TIME Great... I mean at the end of the day people will always remember who you are ala Barkley, Marino, T.O., Earl Campbell, Bonds, etc. Those dudes are immortals in their respective sports, is Trent Dilfer?
So Dan Marino, OJ, T.O., Campbell, etc aren't All Time Greats? -
.This is a tough question. I mean who do we remember Dan Marino or Trent Dilfer? Do we remember Warren Moon or Brad Johnson? You figure you play the game to be a champion and that's is what every players wants but if it doesn't happen and you end up having a hall of fame career then your career is validated in my opinion. Your career is missing something and when it comes to all time arguments it should be brought up that a guy does or doesn't have any rings. But having a hall of fame career can't be replaced. Are we going to remember LT or Joseph Addai?
i think that's true with some, but i also think alot of players play to be the best at their profession. and winning or not winning a super bowl, world series, nba championship doesn't make them any better or worse imo. like with the Dilfer and Addai examples, being a champ doesn't necessarily mean great. So to me, if that rule isn't gonna be applied to the mediocre players then it shouldn't be applied to the elite players either.
I think most guys who are HOF type of players do play to be the best at their profession. And with that their is an assumption that you should win titles. So when a guy is on his way to elite status and has yet to get that ring more pressure and scrutiny is placed on that player. It all depends on each argument to a certain degree when dealing with elite players. If Lebron ends up with 4 rings the 1st thing ppl when say in comparison to MJ is that he has 6 rings. It's just the way it is
i guess it all depends on if the player cares what pundits say. Outside people assume they should do this or they should do that or that they need to achieve certain milestones in order to reach another 'tier.' all that kinda talk is good for tv or internet forums, but that's really about all that it is. -
Or better yet, if LT won a Chip last year with the Jets being the backup to Shaun Green, would that have validated is career as an All Tine Great?
-
read my post.All time great = ring + HOF.As for Dilfer,the fact that we still talk about him makes him have a place in history because he has a ring.I'd rather be an ALL TIME Great... I mean at the end of the day people will always remember who you are ala Barkley, Marino, T.O., Earl Campbell, Bonds, etc. Those dudes are immortals in their respective sports, is Trent Dilfer?
Yea cause he got carried to a ring by your defense, idiot. No one talks about Dilfer in a good light -
You need both.The super elite are all HOF with rings.Kobe,Jordan,Brady and Montana.Making it into the HOF is easy compared to winning a championship.Only suckas settle for just making it into the HOF and Lanolium is a sucka.
i was with you until that ?
-
so many greatest never won rings while ? like eddy curry & Brian Scalabrine got rings
-
dalyricalbandit wrote: »so many greatest never won rings while ? like eddy curry & Brian Scalabrine got rings
Exactly
-
First off the sport definitely matters. You can't be a HOF-er in solo sports like tennis, bowling, golf etc. with no championships. It doesn't work that way.
And secondly define average, and define hall of famer.
In context, average to me is someone like Ray Allen. He's not great, but at the same time he's not a ? . In comparison, a HOF-er to me is someone like Allen Iverson or Malone. Great in every sense of the word, but no ring.
Because of my personality, I would rather be a Ray Allen type player with rings over an Iverson, Barkley, Malone type with no rings. Winning is that important. Plus it's pretty pathetic that some of these guys can play for 14 years and not get a single ring. It's like, "really, you can't win once out of 14 years?!?."
That's why I applaud Lebron for opening up the next generation's eyes. If you want to win a ring, don't wait till you're garbage and jump from team to team. Do it while you still have some juice left.
P.S. If your average is someone like a Robert Horry, then it's a wack thread, because damn near everyone is going to choose be a Charles Barkley over wackass Horry. -
What about dudes that were individually great players and had teams to win titles, but just couldn't get it done. How do ya'll look at those types of careers?
And as far as LT, he is an all time running back, but at the same time I will also remember that he wasn't a factor in the playoffs for the Chargers.
