Skip to content

For Bruschi, choice between Super Bowl ring and HOF is a “no-brainer”

bos_g_bruschi01_400 Getty Images

Football is the ultimate team sport, and the ultimate goal of the ultimate team sport should be the ultimate objective for anyone who plays football.

That’s what former Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi believes, contrary to the views of former Chargers and Jets running back LaDainian Tomlinson, who said earlier this week on NBC SportsTalk that he’d take a career that ends in Canton over one that concludes with one or more Super Bowl rings on his fingers.

During Thursday’s SportsCenter loop, Bruschi makes the case for choosing a silver trophy over a bronze bust.

Bruschi explained that induction into the Hall of Fame is determined not on any field but by 44 voters.  “A Super Bowl, a championship is something you earn,” Bruschi said.  “And it’s something that can never be taken away.  And no one can stop you from doing that.”

As to the inherently subjective process of picking the best of the best players for immortality, Bruschi says, “You can’t control that, but you can control winning.”

He’s right.

And let’s take it a step farther.  Individual accomplishments necessarily mean nothing in a team sport.  What matters is the team.  So the goal for any member of any team should be success of the team, and true success of an NFL team is determined in one way.  By winning a Super Bowl.

If, then, a player was a member of a Super Bowl-winning team, the player participated in an inherently shared success.  Since that’s the objective of the game, winning a Super Bowl should carry more meaning than the Hall of Fame or any other external acknowledgement of the exploits of any one player.

That’s not to say the Hall of Fame should be disbanded.  But any player in any team sport should aspire not to be a Hall of Famer but to be a champion.

For any athletes who don’t feel that way, there’s a whole bunch of individual sports out there.

Permalink 95 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, New England Patriots, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers
95 Responses to “For Bruschi, choice between Super Bowl ring and HOF is a “no-brainer””
  1. jenniferxxx says: Jun 28, 2012 1:36 PM

    But does that change if the Superbowls were won because of cheating?

  2. sdcameron says: Jun 28, 2012 1:37 PM

    So you’re telling me you would rather be a third string TE or a backup no name QB who won a Super Bowl than Barry Sanders?

    Yeah I would be rather be Sanders.

  3. beardedhawk says: Jun 28, 2012 1:37 PM

    says the guy who wont go to the hall of fame…..

  4. blackandbluedivision says: Jun 28, 2012 1:39 PM

    …and cue the spygate jokes.

  5. thegreatgabbert says: Jun 28, 2012 1:39 PM

    Luckily for Tedy, it was a “no brainer”.

  6. slippyal2 says: Jun 28, 2012 1:40 PM

    I don’t think Dan Marino would trade places with Trent Dilfer.

  7. yaryers says: Jun 28, 2012 1:40 PM

    It is a little self centered of LT to just come out and say it. But let’s be honest, what is a bigger achievement? Winning a championship, or being one of the greatest of all time?

    Everyone will remember LaDainian Tomlinson. Nobody will remember DJ Ware.

  8. blackandbluedivision says: Jun 28, 2012 1:43 PM

    The bond you have with your teammates when you can proudly consider yourselves the best team in the league is an incredible team accomplishment. Why? Because not everybody on that team gets the fame an accolades of a Hall of Fame bust. But, they do have a ring. They do have their names in the history books.

  9. blackandbluedivision says: Jun 28, 2012 1:44 PM

    I’m sure Tomlinson would rather be in the Hall of Fame but the few nameless O-linemen who blocked for him would probably want the Super Bowl. Not everybody goes in the HOF.

  10. unbreakable02215 says: Jun 28, 2012 1:45 PM

    “Individual accomplishments necessarily mean nothing in a team sport. What matters is the team. So the goal for any member of any team should be success of the team, and true success of an NFL team is determined in one way. By winning a Super Bowl.”

    I’m not sure every player in the NFL present or
    past feels that way.

  11. umrguy42 says: Jun 28, 2012 1:46 PM

    Best comment I heard on the situation, from Woody Paige (I think) on “Around the Horn” yesterday – Having a ring but no HOF? It’s like saying Dan Marino should aspire to be Trent Dilfer.

  12. recent5 says: Jun 28, 2012 1:48 PM

    Quick, name me a hall of famer who didn’t help their team win games? Even those on bad teams won them plenty of games they otherwise wouldn’t have, even if one wasn’t a Super Bowl.

    Now name me a guy with a Super Bowl ring who didn’t do much to help their team win. You could likely name dozens from the last couple years alone, let alone over the course of the last 40 years.

    There are about 250 players in the HOF, and with 53 guys winning a Super Bowl each year, about 2500 players with rings (counting multiple wins as unique players in this case), including plenty of average punters, special teamers, and guys who were in the bottom 1/3 of the roster who never did much else in their careers other than win that ring.

    Which is more special? Being excellent for a full career and earning a spot among the game’s 250 best? Or being in a lucky circumstance and getting a ring by playing a handful of snaps a game and not contributing a whole lot to the win?

    Would Dan Marino rather be Trent Dilfer? Maybe for one day to win a title, but striving to be average with a ring vs special with HOF votes over the course of a career is ridiculous. Would Bruschi deem his career a failure if he’d not been lucky enough to play for a Pats powerhouse for much of his time in the league?

  13. gorilladunk says: Jun 28, 2012 1:51 PM

    I’ve thought about this quite a bit in the past several days. While I acknowledge that winning a title is the “goal” in any team sport, an individual player can only do so much. Would you trade the career of Dan Marino for Trent Dilfer? Or Ted Williams for Moose Skowron? a player can only do what he or she can do. If they are not surrounded by competent teammates, they won’t be champions. In a perfect world, great players get championships. But this isn’t a perfect world. The Hall of Fame is for eternity and these athletes are legends. Thirty years from now, no one outside of New England will remember Bruschi. But they’ll remember Butkus forever.

  14. i, flounder says: Jun 28, 2012 1:54 PM

    something earned or if you played for the pats something you cheated for. it seems that if you’ve got no ring, but a chance at the hof, you say hof. if you’ve got a ring, and no chance at the hof, you say the ring.

  15. brycebstone says: Jun 28, 2012 1:55 PM

    So we should aspire to be Mario Chalmers instead of Barkley? Brad Johnson instead of Dan Marino.

    When given an either or choice, HoF is the right answer because to be that great you need to sacrifice, work hard, and have great talent.

    To get a Super Bowl ring, you just need to be good enough to not get cut on a team that wins a Super Bowl, like Matt Flynn. Did nothing to win the Super Bowl but still got the ring.

    I’d rather be Marino than Flynn.

  16. jgpike says: Jun 28, 2012 1:55 PM

    Tough call. Bruschi can say that because he’ll never be in the HOF and Tomlinson can say what he said because he will never have a SB…how convenient for them both.

    However, while it is a team game, for DECADES in the future when they look at the great players of the game everyone will see Tomlinson on the screen in highlights and you will never see Bruschi….and EVERY year for the rest of Tomlinson’s life he will sit in Canton and be revered with the best that have ever played while Bruschi sits at home by himself polishing a ring everyone has long since forgotten about.

    I never rooted one way or another for either guy, but purely, objectively speaking I think I’d go with LT.

  17. clashpoint says: Jun 28, 2012 1:55 PM

    Slow news day, and even though I am an University of Arizona alum just like Tedy, he’s getting awfully uppity these days. Is he trying to imply that never winning a title means you weren’t a team player? There are plenty of teams that didn’t have Tom Brady as their QB or Bill Belichick as their coach, Tedy.

    Yes, it’s a team game and teams win titles. That’s kind of the point: To say that great players always play on great teams is just silly. In evaluation of a great player, the HOF probably counts more. A Super Bowl title is the result of being the best team. In LT’s case, his teams never had enough all-around talent to win a title. Since he never won a title – but he will get into Canton, on the first ballot – rationalizing his situation is an important part of accepting it. The HOF is a pretty good consolation prize.

  18. pmd5319 says: Jun 28, 2012 1:57 PM

    This isn’t a fair, for lack of a better term, question. There’s more variables to it. Would you rather be a 3rd string O-lineman who never played a down the entire year for a Super Bowl team, or Dan Marino? I’d chose Marino. I think the answer in most cases would be to win a ring AND be a major contributor. But, team sport or not, I think the majority of people would rather contribute to their team, good team or bad team, than not play a snap all year and be on a championship team. That doesn’t make someone a “bad team player”, I think it makes you a competitor. Competitor’s aren’t satisfied watching.

  19. nebster21 says: Jun 28, 2012 1:57 PM

    where can I go to see a collection of people that have won the super bowl. How many superbowl winners have never touched the football field? You need to atleast pay a few years at an exceptional level in order to make the Hall of fame. You never need to touch the football field and you can still be a superbowl champion.

  20. destructicus says: Jun 28, 2012 1:58 PM

    Well let’s ask Drew Bledsoe if he’d trade his Superbowl ring for a bust in Canton.

  21. pskotte says: Jun 28, 2012 1:58 PM

    A lot of bench warmers get rings and a lot of deserving players are in the HOF but never got a chance to go to the Super Bowl. I guess that if you were a decent (not great) player like Bruschi you have your choice made for you.

  22. dldove77 says: Jun 28, 2012 1:58 PM

    How many Super Bowl winning players are there compared to Hall of Fame players? Lots of scrubs have rings.

  23. jhncmpbll says: Jun 28, 2012 1:59 PM

    If you play like a Hall of Famer, you are more likely to be a Super Bowl Champion. I’m voting Both on this one.

  24. grogansheroes says: Jun 28, 2012 1:59 PM

    The only argument I will make for LT, ever really, is being a hall of famer also means you’re filthy rich. If you are in the bottom 35 of a Super Bowl winning roster, chances are most of your money is gone after a few years being out of the game.

  25. r0b1b0y says: Jun 28, 2012 1:59 PM

    This is a no-brainer for Blowhard Bruchetta on two accounts:
    1) the no brain part
    2) never had a shot at HOF in the first place.

    Anyone with a family and their heart in the right place would choose a HOF career due to the assumption of career longevity at a high level leading to maximized financial compensation via salary/bonuses/endorsements. With any amount of good stewardship this is life changing money for this generation and generations to come.

  26. terrellblowens says: Jun 28, 2012 2:00 PM

    I see both sides of this argument. I think Bruschi has a point but his logic is off. No matter how dominant LT was, it takes more than one player to win a ring. One player can’t control his team’s success unlike in basketball. The Hall of Fame is where individual talent is recognized. On the other hand, every athlete’s dream is to win a championship. Nobody plays a sport with the intent to lose. What I think LT meant is that the Hall of Fame says much more about an individual player than winning a ring does, which I believe is true. 53 players win a Super Bowl every year

  27. flyerscup2010 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:01 PM

    Let’s keep it in perspective here: the future hall of famer who has never won a super bowl is on one side, and the super bowl winner who will not be in the hall of fame is on the other. The real truth here: both things are pretty cool.

  28. 4evrnyt says: Jun 28, 2012 2:01 PM

    Simple math. How many players have superbowl rings versus how many have HOF busts? Clearly it’s much harder to become a HOF player then a superbowl winner.

    LT was correct, it’s a bigger accomplishment to become a member of the HOF then to win a Superbowl. The numbers don’t lie.

  29. jimbo75025 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:01 PM

    So LT who will be a HOF’er with no rings said he would rather be in the HOF

    Brusci who will forever have to pay for a HOF ticket just like Joe Schmoe says he would rather have a ring.

    Sounds about right.

  30. 4evrnyt says: Jun 28, 2012 2:02 PM

    I dont see players trying to ebay their HOF bust when times get tough…

  31. bradshawlives says: Jun 28, 2012 2:02 PM

    It’s interesting that a guy who never won a Super Bowl says he’d rather be in the HOF, and a guy who’ll never be in the HOF says he’d rather win a Super Bowl.

  32. raqaiw says: Jun 28, 2012 2:03 PM

    LT is right. Trent Dilfer is a STARTING SB Champion QB who threw a TD in the big game, and nobody gives him any respect. Marino has no rings, but is widely viewed as the best pure-passer of all time.
    HOF > SB Champ.
    Consider this: Byron Leftwich is a SB champion, but no one will remember outside of people from Pittsburgh(and his family/friends).

  33. bobhk says: Jun 28, 2012 2:04 PM

    The objective of any game is to win a championship. It trumps what anyone else has to think about you. Bruschi is right.

    Besides, if a marginal player wins a championship, good for him, he’d never got to HOF anyway. A great player would go to HOF anyway but he’d much rather be a CHAMPION!

  34. thirstymofo says: Jun 28, 2012 2:04 PM

    I’m pretty sure he is saying that, because that is the only one of the two that he now has a shot at.

  35. lks311 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:04 PM

    If you’re in the HOF, people walk up and recognize you. If you’re a SB champion, at some point (like two seasons later) you have to tell people what you did.

    I’ll take the one where my Great, Great, Great, Great Grand kids walk in to Canton and proudly point to my Bust.

  36. TheJStyles says: Jun 28, 2012 2:05 PM

    Player that is going to the HOF but never won a SB, says he’s happy.

    Player that won the SB, but won’t likely go to the HOF, says he’s happy…

    Interesting…

  37. jbl429 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:08 PM

    Interestingly enough, between Tomlinson and Bruschi, the player who won 3 SBs would pick the SB ring, and the player who will make the HOF would pick the HOF.

  38. diegiantsdie says: Jun 28, 2012 2:09 PM

    This guy needs to go away. He’s constantly in the news and his career is over. Then he wants to complain about tebow talking to the media when he’s still a player. Maybe he’d rather have rings since he will never go to Canton unless he buys a ticket

  39. sportswannabe says: Jun 28, 2012 2:10 PM

    He’s only saying that because he’s not going to Canton. There are more terrible players with rings than there are with jackets and busts.

  40. eezyxyz says: Jun 28, 2012 2:10 PM

    So, let me see if I’m understanding this:

    -the player with no Superbowl ring who’s a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame thinks HoF>ring

    -the player with 3 Superbowl rings and no hope of sniffing the Hall thinks ring>HoF

    I wonder what could possibly be influencing their opinions on this issue?

  41. oldschoolomen says: Jun 28, 2012 2:10 PM

    A Hall of Fame career, in essence, says you were among the best to play.

    Barry Sanders didn’t draft himself on to the Lions. He couldn’t control his offensive line. He didn’t make decisions in the front office. But on the field, his play said he was the best.

    I’d rather be Barry Sanders than Willie Parker.

  42. olfenite says: Jun 28, 2012 2:11 PM

    If you are a Super Bowl champion, you are more likely to be voted into the hall of fame. The likes of Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw do not belong in the Hall of Fame from a statistical view, but the roles they played in winning championships helped them reach the hall of fame. Super Bowl is every bit more important.

  43. jerrysandusky1 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:12 PM

    Superb Owl ring for sure!! As a kid all you dream about is that big game. That chance.

    I think a slight few grow up wanting to play football to get in the HOF. We can’t be bothered by paying homage to forefathers. The HOF voting, game, and ceremonies can be done away with.

  44. dcryan82 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:13 PM

    Easy for Bruschi to say… He was always a part of great teams. As a player, the guy had a huge heart but was marginally talented. His work ethic made him the player that he was. But what about the players who aren’t lucky enough to be a part of great teams? ONE PLAYER CANT CONTROL WINNING. A bust in Canton shows what type of player you were, a Super Bowl ring does NOT. 3rd string players get Super Bowl rings. And while yes, they put in the work at practice and helped prepare the starters, it is still a higher honor to be a Hall of Famer than to be a Super Bowl Champion.

  45. thesportgenius says: Jun 28, 2012 2:15 PM

    Having a HOF career means you contributed in a major way to the success of your team. If everyone played at that level then a championship would be won, no doubt. The HOF is a nice consolation prize for great players who never played on a great team. There are a lot of bench warmers wearing rings who will never be remembered so yes, the ultimate accomplishment is the Lombardi Trophy But a career that ends in Canton aint bad. I get LT’s sentiment.

  46. klutch14u says: Jun 28, 2012 2:17 PM

    If LT had a ring on his finger he’d feel the EXACT same way. But, he doesn’t so… he doesn’t.

    Much like poor people hate rich people until they’re rich.

  47. dcryan82 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:18 PM

    Hall of famers are legends. Players like LT are the reason their team was as good as it was. Players like Bruschi are just cogs in the machine.

  48. mindcrime401 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:21 PM

    Rob Johnson has a SB ring. That alone should discount it’s worth!!!

  49. trollhammer20 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:23 PM

    oldschoolomen says:
    I’d rather be Barry Sanders than Willie Parker.
    ____________________________

    To put it in NBA terms, I’d rather be Charles Barkley or Domonique Wilkins than Mark Madsen or Chuck Nevitt.

  50. savocabol1 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:31 PM

    This is insane. The INDIVIDUAL is forever remembered in Canton. The TEAM is forever remembered with a super bowl ring.

    HOF over ring. Your great-great-great grandchildren can visit your bust in Canton. Or instead they can visit the championship ring your team won instead? Tough call…..

  51. Chris Henry's Wild Ride says: Jun 28, 2012 2:34 PM

    Lets lay off Tomlinson ok? The dude put in a ton of work and effort just to fall a little bit short every year. It’s not his fault he didn’t win a ring, he did more than anyone could have asked of him. Not even a huge fan of his, but he has had an amazing career and lets let him bask in that instead of bashing him for not being on a winning team. I mean let’s be honest, he could be like Shonn Greene and never get a super bowl ring and never be considered for the hall of fame either.

  52. dukemarc says: Jun 28, 2012 2:34 PM

    Says the guy who won’t get into the HOF without a ticket…..

  53. blacknole08 says: Jun 28, 2012 2:38 PM

    The hall of fame is not a guarantee for even the most dominant of players, but having a SB ring on your finger helps elevate those same players into the HOF discussion. And usually only 5-7 players/coaches/contributors get in each year.

    Super Bowls are a team accomplishment and what great players are truly measured by. Heck, it’s what dominates most of the discussions on PFT when we discuss what teams we root for/make fun of teams with none. In fact, stating that a team has even 1 SB trophy in their trophy case over a team that has yet to win one usually ends any conversation.

    In contrast, fans almost never argue about whether their team has more HOFs than someone else’s team. That just seem pointless.

    Super Bowls matter more, and any player that thinks otherwise is selling themselves short of what playing in the NFL is all about: being a champion.

  54. bobhk says: Jun 28, 2012 2:40 PM

    The one thing that people are confusing is this:
    this is not about marginal players anyway. They are not in discussion for HOF.
    This about great players who can win championships and go to HOF.
    Given a choice between two, I’d say championship.
    The purpose of the game is to win a championship. Everyone who plays the game dreams of catching the winning TD or throwing one.
    HOF is about other people’s opinion of you (especially people who’ve never played the game professionally).

  55. patriotera says: Jun 28, 2012 2:44 PM

    The real LT just auctioned off one of his rings. Say all you wanty about Teddy you haters, but Bruschi will never have to do that because he has a good head on his shoulders. He’s a HOF’er in my book.

  56. thraiderskin says: Jun 28, 2012 2:48 PM

    Bruschi says football is the ultimate team sport and winning a superbowl is an ultimate team accomplishment, then he should realise that great players often get stuck with poor teams. All a player can really do is control what he accomplishes(as Teddy noted). Was there something else LT was supposed to do in order for his “team” to win a superbowl? What Teddy, and most people, missunderstands about football, is you make yourself great first, that is what you control. If enough people do this on a team, then you end up being a winner. Obviously there is a little more to it, but football is about a group of INDIVIDUALS coming together to gain victory. It isn’t just about believing you’ll be great, its about each person on that team pushing themSELVES to achieve the common goal. LT did all he could to be great for himself and his team, it was his teams that failed him in the end and the HOF numbers reflect that.

  57. eastcoastninerfan says: Jun 28, 2012 2:52 PM

    Bruschi’s only saying that because he’s not worthy of the HOF

    The only way his response is legit would be if you asked that question to a GM…”Would you rather field a team that wins a championship or a team that has the most HOF players after they retire?”

  58. cserisey says: Jun 28, 2012 2:55 PM

    Hall of Fame is a Monument to Dinosaurs.
    Give me a ring baby!!!

  59. icdogg says: Jun 28, 2012 3:02 PM

    And maybe it’s just me but I think Dan Marino has a lot more to be proud of in his career than Zak DeOssie ever will.

  60. davidjcu says: Jun 28, 2012 3:04 PM

    Yeah there is a choice, but it also depends on circumstance. Most players don’t get to choose what team they play for. They might sign with a team that gives them the best chance to win one, but is a gamble considering that the superbowl can be a toss up every year, not as predictable as basketball where there are the 4 teams that have a far greater shot and are far better than every other team.
    It is a matter of preference. But, I think its better to be known as one of the top players to ever play the game (LT definitely top 10) than to win a championship where no one remembers outside of 5 years of winning it.

  61. Chris Fiorentino says: Jun 28, 2012 3:04 PM

    Why oh why do people continue to give any weight at all to what Tedy Bruschi says? He is an ex-NFL player without a clue in his scrambled brain. I am so sick and tired of hearing from him. I wish he would just shut up and go somewhere and spend his millions. Yeah Tedy, winning a Super Bowl is a team thing. But you can’t win a Super Bowl without a great team. Tomlinson was never on a team that won a Super Bowl. Neither was Barry Sanders. I’ll take either of their HALL OF FAME careers over yours though, Tedy. Sorry, but the Hall of Fame lasts forever too. Like MANY of the previous posters have said…whose career would you take Dan Marino or Trent Dilfer?

    Case closed. TFCO

  62. tfbuckfutter says: Jun 28, 2012 3:06 PM

    Gotta go with being a Hall of Famer.

    Even on a team, all an individual can do is their job. And being a Hall of Famer means you were one of the best at doing your job.

    You can’t control how well the people around you do their job for the most part.

  63. discosucs2005 says: Jun 28, 2012 3:13 PM

    While I think it’s hilarious that a player that never won a ring and a player who will never make it into the hall are arguing on the subject, it’s pretty clear that (at least from a fan perspective) a super bowl is the cooler of the two.

    Barry Bonds once said he’d trade his records for a ring. Does LT really want to be less of a team player than Barry Bonds?

  64. bosspower says: Jun 28, 2012 3:15 PM

    I like how everybody is trying to throw dirt on Dilfer. Trent Dilfer took over an 0-4 team. Trent Dilfer was throwing TD passes in big games, he threw that 96 yard TD pass to Shannon Sharpe to beat the Oakland Raiders in Oakland in Afc Championship game, and was the best Ravens QB until Joe Flacco came. The Ravens should have kept Dilfer and the lack of respect to him equaled no SB appearance since he left. Trent Dilfer made the throws that won championships, and I think Dilfer beat Marino in playoffs that Yr too. The Ravens Defense needed Dilfer as much as Dilfer needed that Defense. Dilfer was a Huge reason the Ravens won!!!!

  65. bigjimatch says: Jun 28, 2012 3:23 PM

    The premise itself is faulty, being a hall of famer and being a suberbowl winner are not mutually exclusive. no doubt bruschi and LT both would have preferred to be hall of famers who won the suberbowl. But its not a choice, is it? It all depends on the player and the team he happens to be on. if Bruschi played for the bills, no one would be talking abot him, and he would not have made Buffalo a superbowl winner.

  66. monsterofyourgirlsmidway says: Jun 28, 2012 3:37 PM

    I didn’t even read this article and I can tell you why both men feel the way they do. Teddy B. is not going to come close to being inducted in the HOF, yet was lucky enough to hop on the belichick superbowl train. Obviously he’s going to go with the “team first” attitude because he wasn’t good enough individually as a player to be HOF discussions.

    LT is a shoe-in for the HOF but got stuck with Marty (I can’t win a playoff game) schotenheimer (or howver you spell it). Obviously he’ll take the HOF stance because he got stuck on teams that couldn’t get the job done.

    The grass is always greener on the other side.

  67. mjkelly77 says: Jun 28, 2012 3:37 PM

    If you are a Hall of Fame athlete, you know that you’ve done your best over a career. A Super Bowl ring just means that you played on the best team. You may have only been in for one play … yet you still have a ring. There are a lot more Super Bowl rings around than Hall of Fame players. If you’re that good of a player, you can sign with whichever team you want. That’s how you can maximize your shot at a Super Bowl. Look at the NBA’s James. Bosch and Wade. That’s exactly what they did.

  68. mjkelly77 says: Jun 28, 2012 3:42 PM

    blackandbluedivision says:Jun 28, 2012 1:44 PM

    I’m sure Tomlinson would rather be in the Hall of Fame but the few nameless O-linemen who blocked for him would probably want the Super Bowl. Not everybody goes in the HOF.
    _____________________

    Not everybody goes in the HOF. That’s exactly the point. Not eveybody and that’s why it’s the bigger honor.

  69. buffalomafia says: Jun 28, 2012 3:43 PM

    Andre Reed should enter this year!!!!

  70. kenudo says: Jun 28, 2012 3:47 PM

    You can control winning alright. It sure is easy for one LB to put a whole team on his back and win the Super Bowl all by himself.
    There is an incredible amount of chance involved in winning a Superbowl. Even the greatest QB’s need to have a good line and good team around them.
    And on the flip side of that, the decent players on that team need a great QB, as Bruschi needed Brady to deliver him his cherished rings.
    There are over 50 players getting new rings each and every season. You can be a career backup and win multiple championships.
    Only a few are inducted into the Hall each year. Another commentator put it perfectly: “I’d rather be Barry Sanders than Willie Parker”. And I’d rather be LT than Bruschi.

  71. monsterofyourgirlsmidway says: Jun 28, 2012 3:53 PM

    teddy bruschi is a horrible analyst! stop telling stories of the past and contribute something constructive to ESPN. He makes shaq on tnt look good

  72. zjfr2 says: Jun 28, 2012 3:58 PM

    It be nice if the world of team sports was as utopian as this post makes it out to be, but until pro sports starts compensating all team members equally and the 53rd guy on the roster is paid what QB1 makes, and there is no Pro Bowl or HOF or endorsement deals involved this is a pointless question, every person in their right mind with an ounce of sense would answer the question that being an HOFer matters more than a ring. Ideally they go hand and hand, but I highly doubt Marino, Fouts, Barry Sanders, TO, or a long list of others are rushing to trade places with David Carr.

  73. mark0226 says: Jun 28, 2012 4:00 PM

    Bruschi explained that induction into the Hall of Fame is determined not on any field but by 44 voters. “A Super Bowl, a championship is something you earn,” Bruschi said. “And it’s something that can never be taken away. And no one can stop you from doing that.”

    ===
    Let’s take a look at Bruschi’s own words.

    1) The 44 voters are making a subjective decision based on what you did on the field. If you didn’t accomplish anything on the field, then you would not even be considered by those 44 voters, you know, like Bruschi.

    2) A championship is something you earn. And, a HOF is just given to people that did not earn it? Even the 3rd string QB, who is inactive on game day, gets a SB ring. Did he earn it?

    3) SB ring can never be taken away. Unless you give it to your brother and he sells it on eBay. The HOF can be taken away? Even OJ Simpson still has a bust in Canton.

    4) No one can stop you from doing that. Doing what? I guess he means voters can keep you out of the HOF, but voters cannot keep you from a championship. No, but a kicker can make or break your championship. It also was not in your control.

  74. patsfiend says: Jun 28, 2012 4:21 PM

    Well, the only person to qualify to speak of this would be someone who is ineligible for the Hall and who also never won a SB (like Chad Pennington) or someone who has won a SB (or three) and will also be in the Hall of Fame on the first vote (like Tom Brady.)

    You could hear/see the passion in Bruschi as he discussed it, though. Man, I miss Tedy. Pats have been lacking a vocal leader on D, it seems, for a while. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that Harrison, Bruschi, and McGinest have all “made it” on TV. Solid bunch of smart guys.

  75. bigdaddydooko says: Jun 28, 2012 4:26 PM

    “A Super Bowl, a championship is something you earn,” Bruschi said.
    (So is a spot in the hall of fame.)

    “And it’s something that can never be taken away.
    (yes it is. Ask Charlie batch. How many HoF busts have been removed)

    And no one can stop you from doing that.”
    (doing what? This doesn’t even make sense)

  76. stavreafavre says: Jun 28, 2012 4:36 PM

    I vote for being Tom Brady.
    Has the ring(s).
    Will have the bust.
    Has the supermodel. (Bust and all.)
    Can’t beat the trifecta.

  77. slickster35 says: Jun 28, 2012 4:48 PM

    LaDainian never had the heart to contribute to a world champion.

    All me first, all the time.

  78. jjbadd says: Jun 28, 2012 4:58 PM

    There is a legitimate argument for both sides. Hell, even office people get rings. I guess in a perfect world, getting both is the best answer, but LT is still amazing without a ring, as are many other players.

  79. natelan69 says: Jun 28, 2012 6:35 PM

    Bruschi is going to have another heart attack.

  80. jimmylions says: Jun 28, 2012 9:03 PM

    This is about individual goals over team goals (i.e., Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain).

    I happen to think Russell’s giant stack of championship rings is a lot more impressive than Chamberlain’s long list of individual records.

  81. hack19 says: Jun 28, 2012 9:49 PM

    This is such a stupid question taken out of context. I think the question is suppose to be would Dan Marino trade his acceptance into the Hall of Fame for a Super Bowl ring without an otherwise change in his career. Obviously he wouldn’t change his career for Trent Dilfer’s. Plus, asking players that have a Super Bowl ring but no credentials for consideration into the HOF is funny as they will be so biased.

  82. cuffhimbanano says: Jun 28, 2012 11:08 PM

    This argument is simple. If you play starting quarterback you take the ring. If you play any other position you take the HoF.

    Actually, it’s even simpler. People who say these things have or are getting both. Give Dan Marino the choice of beating the 49ers and sucking the rest of a 3-year career or keeping the career he had.

    That’s what I thought.

  83. juvenaldelinquent says: Jun 28, 2012 11:31 PM

    Would one rather win a championship with a bunch of battle weary, sweaty team mates, or get voted into the Hall of Fame by a bunch of fat, sweaty sports reporters whose idea of overcoming adversity is elbowing their way to the complimentary press room buffet?

  84. jessethegreat says: Jun 29, 2012 1:06 AM

    Bottom line…. if you take the Hall Of Fame QB away from Tedy’s teams, he wouldn’t even be a Super Bowl Champion.

  85. nekelund says: Jun 29, 2012 1:59 AM

    This criticism of LaDanian Tomlinson is frankly stupid. His comments seem quite reasonable for someone who, despite having played well for the majority of his career, never got even the chance to play in a Super Bowl. It strikes me as strange to criticize LDT for suggesting that getting into the Hall of Fame, something that seems distinctly possible, might be more valuable than winning one as a player, which is no longer possible for him. The fact that Tedi Bruschi has won several SB’s but seems highly unlikely to get the HOF nod puts him in a radically-different position from LDT and I would expect that many former NFL player who either won an SB or made it to the HOF but did not accomplish the other would describe as preferable the one they accomplished in their career.

    Were LDT’s comments a deviation from the orthodox and, frankly, somewhat cliched platitude about how the only thing that matters being the team and that individual accomplishments were nothing? Yes, but that does not mean that LDT did not try to do everything he could to try and win a championship. It is a complete and utter falsehood to suggest that individual honours do not matter to players, teams or coaches; consider both Sean Payton and Bill Belicheck doing their best to push their respective TE’s to break the receiving yards record. If a hypothetical 4-time SB winner said at his HOF ceremony that the HOF > winning a SB, most people would not give a hoot.

    There is no evidence to suggest that Tomlinson didn’t try his hardest to win it all. Unfortunately, like the vast majority of running backs, his body wasn’t able to handle the punishment it withstood, especially when he was carrying the team to successful regular season records.

  86. nekelund says: Jun 29, 2012 2:18 AM

    Besides, how do we know that LDT’s comments weren’t, to a greater or lesser extent, an attempt to conceal the fact that not having won a SB is eating him up inside? A bit of sour grapes/rationalizing his career while coming to terms with his inability to win a championship, perhaps. He is, after all, only human.

  87. fsf7 says: Jul 1, 2012 5:17 PM

    olfenite says: Jun 28, 2012 2:11 PM

    If you are a Super Bowl champion, you are more likely to be voted into the hall of fame. The likes of Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw do not belong in the Hall of Fame from a statistical view, but the roles they played in winning championships helped them reach the hall of fame. Super Bowl is every bit more important.
    —————————————————–

    These statements illustrate the outright ignorance of the passing game of the era they played in – no offensive coordinators, QBs calling plays, no Mel Blount rule, long before the “West Coast Offense”

    Learn a little about the era before acting like you know anything about the quality of the QB.

  88. atacoshipinaseaofwhitesauce says: Jul 1, 2012 11:12 PM

    These things aligned with “Tedy Bruschi” make me laugh:

    “a Hall of Fame Career”

    “no brainer”

    Bruschi implied LT didn’t give his all to his team. His logic is a no-brainer. Tedy Bruschi is a no brainer.

  89. bikelikemike says: Jul 2, 2012 12:56 PM

    Of course it’s a higher INDIVIDUAL accomplishment to get inducted into the HOF, and a wonderful thing to be a member of a superb SB team. Both guys are only stating the obvious; which is now beyond their control. Tedy said what he did because he’s truly honored, but he’s perhaps just smacking tomlinson around because lt is an angry jerk who hated the Pats after they celebrated their win at SD, and told all kinds of childish lies about them because he’s a spoiled, lousy loser. lt has a reputation of being shy and quiet, but that never equated to humble or gracious. Tedy is truly a nice and happy man- even though he says some dumb things. I’ll side w/ tedy every time- even though lt’s statement is more correct. haha! After lt’s tirade I’ve returned lt’s hatred right back at him, and I LMAO every time anything didn’t go his way.

  90. bikelikemike says: Jul 2, 2012 1:05 PM

    I LMAO and feel so warm and fuzzy inside that the spoiled brat tomlinson never got close to a Super Bowl.. and every season in his sport he went home early all sad and sh1t!!! And the happiest guy, most fun to be around, hardest working team-mate in the fricken universe.. won multiple rings. hehe!!!

  91. scottytboltfan says: Jul 2, 2012 3:25 PM

    “A Super Bowl, a championship is something you earn,” Awesome quote from Teddy as his team cheated to get there.

    What’s even better is Teddy couldn’t carry LT’s jock let alone tackle him one on one. The guy was a role player alongside real guys like Harrison, Law and Seymour.

  92. siaaa says: Jul 2, 2012 3:53 PM

    Lt was not only the best palyer on his team, he was also the best player in the entire league for a couple of years. Teddy on the other hand, was just there to plug the line. he never mattered.
    Teddy should shut his trap about players that were much beter than him and played at the ultimate level.

  93. matthewcarlson1 says: Jul 3, 2012 2:42 PM

    He didn’t say 1 or MORE rings, he said he’d rather be in the Hall than have ONE ring and I completely agree with him. There are a ton of players with rings that nobody remembers, if he goes into the hall his name will go on as long as the league lasts.

  94. bobzilla1001 says: Jul 4, 2012 1:18 AM

    Tedy Bruschi, like most ESPN analysts, especially Skip Bayless, is overexposed. His song and dance has gotten old and tiresome: The Patriots didn’t cheat, Belichick is a genuis, Brady is greatest of all-time, blah, blah, blah.
    Go lie down, Tedy.

  95. shzastl says: Jul 5, 2012 4:04 PM

    It’s just not black and white. The player’s goal should be to strive to be the best he can be and do everything he can to help the team win. The rest of what goes into winning a Super Bowl is really out of his control. You need to be fortunate enough to be drafted by a team with good management that will put the pieces around you, to have Tony Romo overthrow a wide open receiver, etc.

    The way LT answered it wasn’t the best, but it seems like his point was that at the end of the day, all any individual can do is be the best they can, of course you want to win and give everything you can to get that team goal, but when you look back on your career if you were a hall of famer you know you can be proud you gave it everything you had and made the most of your career, whereas lots of guys who have rings were basically in the right place at the right time.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!