Which would you rather be?

Posted 7 years.


  • Lorraine - 7 years ago

    I agree with TB and with the writer of the article. Football is a team sport. Remember when the Pats were the first team to enter the field as a team? Now many of them do it. Everyone contributes. TB is the ultimate team player. He was the best! I love Bruschi. What a class act!

  • RiefferD - 7 years ago

    This is a stupid argument. More times than not, a player can't choose what team he plays for. All he can do is control whether or not he gives his all to that team. There are 1000's of SuperBowl winners, quite a few less Hall of Famer's.

  • spooky - 7 years ago

    I'm not buying for a second that because people vote on the HOF that it means you "can't control" it as if it is like a tornado that you have no control over. Tomlinson is a top 3 RB if not the top RB of his playing years. He can indeed control the way he prepares & plays. Break scoring records, get nice & high on the all-time rushing lists, etc., play so good that you are considered a first ballot Hall of Famer & you won't have to worry about the voters! Didn't one of the recent Super Bowl winners order almost 100 rings? So how many career backups, trainers, assistant coaches' mistresses, have super Bowl Rings?... (ok, maybe not that bad, but you get the idea!) What the question should be is Super Bowl MVP or a bust in Canton - at least that makes a choice worth thinking about! But I'm not going to condemn players who didn't have a Tom Brady or a Joe Montana on their team!

  • Rick - 7 years ago

    Let's see....Super Bowl ring...possibly the worst player on the best team or Hall of Fame...possibly the best player on a bad team. I think I would rather be known for having given it all, all the time...even knowing that we were not going anywhere as a team. I pick Hall of Fame.

  • cory - 7 years ago

    Super Bowl = You played on a great team

    HOF = You were an exceptionally great player

    This question is almost like: Would you rather win millions in the lottery or earn millions through a lifetime of dedication to your trade?

  • Phil - 7 years ago

    Seems like a no-brainer to me to go with the HOF. The recognition really means something there and will last forever. You have a Hall of Fame museum with a tribute to you forever. People will visit that museum forever and will be reminded of your exploits. As Michael said, a ring just means you were on the team or maybe even a trainer. You might have been the worst player on that team and contributed nothing. However, you can't fake your way through a Hall of Fame induction. To me, that means you were something special. A ring means nothing really about you specifically.

  • michael - 7 years ago

    The only problem with this argument is that you can be on a team and contribute zero and still be a superbowl champion...every player should want to be the best he can be in order to reach a common goal of a superbowl....what says that you did the best you possibly could better than being in canton...sometimes everything doesn't fall right to win a superbowl..but that.doesn't mean you didn't give 100%

  • B - 7 years ago

    Im thinking TO voted 149 times ;-)

  • Rich - 7 years ago

    Wow, can't beleive how close the split is on this. What does that say about our society.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment