I find it funny........

[Hawkeye]

I was watching a show on the NFLN the other day, "Top 10 Players Not in the HOF." Number ten was Ken Anderson. As they talked about why he should be and why not, one guy who is a voter said, "I don't think a guy that's never won a championship should be in there. WTF? So that must mean that he either voted against or is opposed to Dan Fouts, Warren Moon, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Sonny Jurgensen, YA Tittle and Dan Marino being in the HOF then. I find that idiotic.

Thoughts?

[MarvinMartian]

Yeah, um...SB isn't the, and shouldn't be, the only criterea to be in the HoF.


I mean there are a TON of people who aren't in the HoF and should be...even SB winners(Cliff Harris, Drew Pearson, and maybe Harvey Martin and Ed "Too Tall" Jones are just a few from my own Cowboys, lol).


This guy was an idiot if he actually said that.


BTW Hawk, you're up in the NCAA Draft, lol.

[gamefarm83]

I'm thinking by Championship, he was including AFC and NFC championships... but still a flawed theory

[StevenSD]

very flawed line of thinking and leads me to think why he's allowed to even VOTE for the HOF

does anyone know the % of players that are in the HOF without a ring?

[william00777]

This is a better arguement in Basketball but still flawed even in that sport. If football was an idividual thing then yeah I could say almost champions only. It's far from it. there are 53 guys on the roster with over 50% of them playing huge roles on deciding if you do get that championship. The best football player of all time couldn't win with a team of scrubs.

[OSU8085]

superbowl wins do matter a lot, more than say world series titles in baseball when judging a player

[TexecutedInTampa]

superbowl wins do matter a lot, more than say world series titles in baseball when judging a player

They matter....Dan Marino?

SB wins aren't ALL there is.

[Sascha]

superbowl wins do matter a lot, more than say world series titles in baseball when judging a player


You're right in the opinion that they do matter, but should they matter as much?

I mean, I like Tom Brady. I don't like the Patriots, but I am in no means a Brady hater. He had my vote for NFL MVP a couple years before Moss and Welker came to town, and he is unquestionably going to the Hall.

But many, MANY, people, perhaps even a majority, call Brady a better QB than Peyton Manning, and the only possible way I can see this justified is by comparing team success.

Manning is the better player, shouldn't he get higher consideration when the Hall comes calling?

As much as I hate to admit it, same went for Montana and Marino. Montana is one of the game's all-time greats, but for my money, if I needed one QB from that era, it was Marino.

[adiv_rulez]

I agree with the initial claim. The criteria should be solely the player's stats and not the team's. I mean you could see it as a plus, but the main thing to consider should be the player himself since he is the one who will be in the HOF and not the team.