He's reflecting on his career. If he was a super bowl winner minus HOF credentials, I think he'd rather be an athlete that he was in college and in HS where he was head and shoulders above his peers and remembered in history for it.
Screw the nature of the HOF. the TEAM of a marginally talented player winning a ring will be remembered more than the player himself. A HOF PLAYER is remembered more than a marginally talented player with a ring.
Getting respect from your peers as being one of the best ever means much more than a team ring.
the thing is...some players by nature want a ring over anything else. or at least that's how I see it
I guess different strokes for different folks. when I was playing sports-any kind of sports- my goal was to win the game/tournament, not dominate the tournament...its the kind of thing you hear players say- even though half time its prolly not honest- that theyd sacrifice their individual stats just so the team can win.
so reflecting back its a bit easier to say that as it is reflective of your career....so you have a point.
but personally if I was a pro athlete (and I know Im not...thats not the point) Id rather have won a ring than "be remembered" in hof
. especially if I was considered a pretty decent player and my team will remember me.
obviously if the choice is between being a scrub getting a ring and hoF career without one, its an easy choice.
but its also a pretty contrived one. if LT could be a borderline HoF back AND have won a ring...I do think he'd hesitate when answering.
another one, like Ive said, case in point: frank gore.
again, its just my opinion.
