Buy/Sell...

[dawgstudent]

I would rather be a starter on a Super Bowl team that lost than a role player on a Super Bowl team that won.

Courtesy of Dan Patrick.

 

[dawgstudent]

I would rather be a starter on a Super Bowl team that lost than a role player on a Super Bowl team that won.

Courtesy of Dan Patrick.

 

[615dawg]

but I say sell. You can always show off that ring, Billy Begley style.

 

[birdZdawg]

I'd rather have the ring.

 

[msudawg12]

this is contingent on the role.

if i'm a special teams guy and i get my ring then i'm happy because thats either what i'm always going to be or i'm young and coming up. To never play throughout the season and get a ring, I would put that **** in the closet

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

[No message]

 

[bonedaddy401]

Give me the ring. I don't care if I am the guy who untangles the Punter/Kickers net I want the ring.

 

[TheMAROONandWHITE]

Because if I was a starter then I'd be making a lot more money to support the family and that is what matters more than rings.

 

[bonedaddy401]

I think you could take care of a family with that.

Here is a breakdown of the minimum salaries for NFL players.

• Rookies and first-year players $285,000
• Second-year players $360,000
• Third-year $435,000
• Fourth-year $510,000
• Fifth- through seventh-year $595,000
• Eighth- through tenth-year $720,000
• Eleventh-year and longer $820,000

</p>

</p>

I'll take the ring.</p>

 

[FQDawg]

I'll take the ring... Winning beats losing any day regardless of where you fit in the equation.

 

[TheMAROONandWHITE]

My point is I'd rather be a star making $2mil a year on the losing team than the second year player making $360,000. </p>

 

[bonedaddy401]

but if you have a Super Bowl ring you have something only a small fraction of the population can claim.

I promise you that close to every retired player that doesn't have a ring wishes they had one no matter how much money they made when they were playing.

 

[Foronce]

Sell. Best job in the NFL is Jim Sorgi... was Matt Cassell. http://bostonist.com/attachments/boston_caroline/010307-tom-brady.jpg]SEE TOM BRADY![/url]

 

[patdog]

<span class="post-title">Down the line, nobody will give a **** you made 2 mil a year</span>

I promise you that close to every retired player that doesn't have a ring wishes they had one no matter how much money they made when they were playing.

I can guaran-damn-tee you that I'd give a ****. And I'm sure a lot of retired players would rather have a $2M/year career with no ring than a couple of years at $280K-$360K with a ring. The ring is great, but you're not set for life with a 2-year league minimum career. You are set for life with a career that maxes out at $2M/year.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

I'd go with cash

 

[msudawg12]

agreed,

just think about how many of these retired stars have auctioned off super bowl rings and heisman trophies and what not to get the dough to support their families and their injury laden bodies</p>

 

[bonedaddy401]

1. Not give a ****

2. Ask you for a loan

Seriously, you are probably right in a few cases but don't think Jim Kelly and company don't wish they had a ring. Go ask Kent Hull yourself.

 

[dogfan96]

If I play for the league minimum and have an average length career (ie 3 years or so), then I'll take the other route. If I made $300K or so for 3 years, I'd have to get a real job afterwards. A Super Bowl ring isn't worth that to me.
If I'm a star and make $3-10M/year and never have to work again, that's the more desirable route.
Now if I'm a career special teamer for 10-15 years like Steve Tasker or Bill Bates and that's my "role", then I'll take that.</p>

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

we would rather have 10 million in the bank over a few hundred thousand when all is said and done, ring or not

 

[patdog]

I don't give a **** whether you'd be more impressed with my money (and no need to ever work again for the rest of my life at age 30) or with my Super Bowl ring, but just a regular working stiff at age 30. I'd rather have the money and the financial security and freedom that goes with it. The question isn't what would impress other people more, but what a person would choose for himself.

I'm sure it absolutely kills Jim Kelly that he doesn't have a Super Bowl ring. But I'm not sure he'd give up all of the money he made over all those years and trade it in for a 2-year league minimum career and not have the nice house, savings, financial security, ability to do whatever the hell he wants to 24/7, etc. that all that money he made has brought him.

 

[8dog]

and Im guessing he'll discuss it for 3 hours. I almost fell asleep typing this.

 

[bonedaddy401]

I sure as hell wasn't.

 

[MaxwellSmart]

nmku

 

[Agentdog]

kills Jim Kelly that he doesn't have a Super Bowl ring.

Also, I bet Kelly and Marino for that matter would not give up his career stats and starting role on numerous AFC Championship teams to be a back up on a team that won the Super Bowl.

That is why I would rather be a starter. I would rather be out there competing than standing on the sidelines most of the time.

 

[ranier wolfcastle3]

People like Jim Kelly and Steve McNair may lose sleep at night because they never won a Superbowl, but they are losing sleep on a huge bed, inside a mansion, flanked by supermodels. The backup player described in the buy/sell typically ends up being some guy selling used cars. But hey, at least he has a nice ring on his finger.

 

[Todd4State]

because one of the reasons they wanted the ring was because by winning one it would elevate their status among the legends of the NFL. The difference is when people talk about them, the "BUT he never won a ring" thing comes up.

I think Kent Hull would be a better reference point.

That said- best job in the NFL is third string QB. I'll take the ring.

 

[KurtRambis4]

what if you were the guy blowing up the helmet....

 

[patdog]

The backup player described in the buy/sell typically ends up being some guy selling used cars. But hey, at least he has a nice ring on his finger.

Nah. Half the time he winds up pawning off the ring too.

 

[Agentdog]

It is a great example. The point is not about much money you would make in one situation vs. another. The point is would you rather be out there playing in the entire game but not get a ring. Or standing on the sideline and get a ring. Kelly will forever be remembered for playing in all those Super Bowls with the Bills. I can not remember if Johnie Cooks was a starter or not in 1990 but he has a Super Bowl ring. I bet very few people outside MS know him. Forget the money......... You would much rather be out there playing regardless. But to each is own.

 

[Coach33.sixpack]

I would want that ring. Start or not

 

[kired]

It was whether or not you'd prefer to play every down for the loser, or only step on the field a handfull of times for the winner.

For me, it'd depend on where I was in my career. If it was during my first 2-3 years in the NFL, I'd rather start for a losing team. But if I'd been in the league for 10 years & had no ring, I'd take a role as back-up for the winning team.

 

[Bulldog Backer]

Winning the Super Bowl takes both starters and role players, and some role players rise to the occasion during the Super Bowl. I'd rather be a winner than a loser any day, even if my role was just "holder."

 

[HD6]

but it's in basketball. Would you rather be Robert Horry or Karl Malone?

 

[HamilReb]

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SXv8rMIFrxg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="never" width="425" height="344" ></embed>