Style/Genre/Audience- Any aged sports fan that has argued about who is the greatest player is.

The Ring Debate
Being a sports fan I have engaged in multiple debates about who is the greatest all time at their position or sport, but being in these debates I have realized that there are many things that should and should not measure an individual player’s level of greatness. The first player set I would like to discuss is the quarterback position. There have been many arguments for many quarterbacks throughout the history of the NFL. You could present an argument for multiple players like Peyton Manning, Johnny Unitas, Tom Brady, Joe Montana, Steve Young, and John Elway. Notice the players listed have all won at least one super bowl. My question to you is, is it fair to compare these men on the number of rings they have won to how great of a quarterback they are? I personally believe that a player should not be determined by how great they are because of the amount of rings they have. The act of winning a Super Bowl is a complete team effort; no one player can win a super bowl by himself. A receiver cannot catch the ball unless a quarterback throws him a good pass, a running back cannot run the ball without an offensive line to block for him, and a defense cannot stop the other team’s offense if they are exhausted. How can you measure an individual player on a team accomplishment? Vince Lombardi said, “The achievements of an organization are the results of the combined effort of each individual.” What this means is a player’s greatness are put into a TEAM effort to win a championship. If you went into any locker room and heard a coach’s speech he will tell you it takes more than one player to win a championship. If Peyton Manning doesn’t win Super Bowl XLI does that mean he is not a great player? Being a four-time MVP should be a calculation of his greatness not a one-time Super Bowl Champion. I believe that the amount of individual accolades that you achieve in your career like MVP’s, All-Star Selections, All-Pro, and records that you break should be a measure of how great you are. Another sport that I find this argument prevalent in is the NBA and most notably right now is the Kobe/LeBron debate. LeBron has been condemned strongly about his decision to join Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh down in Miami. People like to say he won’t be as good as Jordan or Kobe because he had to join other superstars to win a championship, but if we look at history no player has single handedly won a championship. How can you blame LeBron for wanting to get a ring? He took Cleveland to the Finals, but because the lack of a team around him he was not able to win. Kobe and LeBron are both future hall of famers and their stats prove that, but do not condemn LeBron for joining up with a team to win a championship. The Mavericks proved that it takes a team effort to win and not just 2 or 3 players. Also Kobe was not able to win a championship until he had Shaq, then once Shaq left he could not get another ring until he got Pau Gasol. Jordan was not able to win a ring until he had Pippen. Every team that has won a championship has had more than one great player on it. So let us not measure a player’s individual greatness, or penalize his greatness on winning a ring, but in fact let us use the cold hard facts to supply proof of how great a player is. Everyone involved in an organization gets a ring once a team wins a championship. That means the 3rd string bench warmer will receive one. So if everyone gets a ring on the team then does that mean everyone should be equally great in the history books? Is David Carr better than Dan Marino because Carr has a ring and Dan does not? Let this marinate then decide how you feel.