Too much put on having a ring(s)

When ranking QBs for HOF or in a list of best of all time, i tend to find that fans put far too much in how many rings they won. Of the players that played in the 90's, speaking as of now, there are 7 qbs in the HOF, and of them only 2 have not won a superbowl, thats 29%. During that time there are 6 RB/FB that are in the HOF, 3 of which have no ring.

Having a look at some one who is currently playing, Donovan McNabb. After passing for over 36,000 yards and having a TD to INT rtion of 2, does he deserve HOF consideration, or do you have to break records such as the only 2 QB playing in 90's in the HOF without a ring?

Or do these players tend to get the nod with a later ballot, and there fore some QBs who retired in the 90's will get in?

Always an interesting argument Adzac.
I don't subscribe to the view that to make the HOF you need rings (as QB) but playing QB is more about managing a team and marshalling an offence than playing ability alone, so there is a greater emphasis on your ability to look after the ball.
Kurt Warner was a million to one to get in the HOF before he went to the desert, he was considered too loose with the ball and took too many chances, yet he won no more rings after his spell at the Rams.
There is a slightly different set of rules around QBs that qualify - I made the case that Rodgers performances over the last three years were HOF standard and if he played like that for a another 5 years I'd put him in, the response was 'he needs rings' - I don't believe he became a better QB on Feb 6 than he was on Feb 5 and I don't believe he became a better offence manager, but I guess what he did prove was that he can handle the intense pressure of superbowl week which is of course an attribute you would want in your QB

After this year, you can't say McNabb deserves HOF status unless he significantly ups his game wherever he plays next year. To me a HOF QB is someone that shows true leadership and had that knack of making something out of nothing, or at least taking his team close (Marino). McNabb flopped in the SB, lacked that bit of something in many games and can't bemoan his lack of success on a bad defense, so he wouldn't get my vote.

skins4ever wrote:After this year, you can't say McNabb deserves HOF status unless he significantly ups his game wherever he plays next year. To me a HOF QB is someone that shows true leadership and had that knack of making something out of nothing, or at least taking his team close (Marino). McNabb flopped in the SB, lacked that bit of something in many games and can't bemoan his lack of success on a bad defense, so he wouldn't get my vote.

He showed true leadership in Philly, taking them close? Went to superbowl and how many championship games? He was famed for creating something out of nothing during his years of no good receiveres.

Not saying he makes it, but he is very close IMO

Very good article & some excellent points made by Grizzly.... The Quarterback position is like no other. The majority of a teams success can be attributed to how a quarterback manages the game.... But possessing a Superbowl ring shouldn't have a direct correlation to membership to the HOF.

Consistency & longevity are much more important attributes than championships (i'm sure no one ranks Rypien or Dilfer above McNabb) which is why I agree completely with your analysis of Kurt Warner's career.... If we are talking about the greatest ever you need all 3 attributes.

McNabb? He's a contender for me, any guy who leads his team to 5 Conference Championship games deserves to be up for nomination

The ultimate goal of any team and (should be for) players is to win a championship. While a ring shouldn't be compulsory for a HoF career, for me you'd need to be a statistical monster to get in without one. McNabb isn't HoF calibre without a ring for me.

Brady12 wrote:Consistency & longevity are much more important attributes than championships (i'm sure no one ranks Rypien or Dilfer above McNabb) which is why I agree completely with your analysis of Kurt Warner's career.... If we are talking about the greatest ever you need all 3 attributes.

I am in Ohio at the moment and a few days ago visited the HOF. The place is awesome and if you get the opportunity to go then make sure you get there as the doors open - you should just about see everything and get 10 mins in the shop before they kick you out at closing time!

Brady your above quote is spot on. The one thing I noted about the QBs in the HOF is that they all have/had charisma.

If a ring matter, how come Bernie Kosar isn't considered? Not saying he deserves it, but took his team to 3 conference championship games (and unfortunately came up against Elway in 2 of them and Marino in the other) made 1 SB appearance and got a SB ring as a backup with the Cowboys.

There is no golden rule as to who should be in the HOF, but I would say consistency, character, leadership (team or at your position) and good statistics are major contributors. A SB ring is a big help, but should be a decider between alternatives, than a decider in and of itself.