Originally posted by mustangmele:
Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Honestly, I am so sick of the SB argument for Hall of Famers. I am being 100% honest that this has NOTHING to do with it being Alex Smith. Its just that for Hall of Famers, you need to have an impressive list of INDIVIDUAL accomplishments to be considered a Hall of Famer.
Like when people bring up Ben Roethlisberger as a future Hall of Famer, I find that absurd. Just because he has two rings, doesnt outweigh the fact that aside from ONE Pro Bowl appearance, Ben's resume of personal accomplishments is a blank piece of paper.
I totally get what your saying. However, Super Bowls do play a factor. For example, if Joe Montana never won 4 super bowls his stats wouldn't make him a first ballot necessarily. Same goes for Troy Aikman. Getting your team to the Super Bowl says you have a certain element to your game that can be seen on a stat sheet. On the other hand, we can let guys in like Tedy Bruschi either just because they've won 3.
Totally hear what you are saying as well. Rings should be used in combination with personal achievements.
Lets play a game with Joe Montana for a second (and I think this will help illustrate my point). Lets hypothetically say that Joe Montana never once got to the Superbowl (deep breath...I know its a tough thing to imagine). Is this list right here enough to make Joe a Hall of Famer:
6x All Pro
8x Pro Bowler
2x Comeback Player of the Year
6x MVP/Sportsman of the Year/Player of the Year type awards (various publications)
0 Super Bowl appearances
So do you think thats a Hall of Fame resume? I do.
[ Edited by 80sbaby24 on Aug 23, 2012 at 1:49 PM ]