Who deserves a/another ring on this roster?

[Fencer]

Deion Branch

The guy was Super Bowl MVP and I think also set some marginal Super Bowl receiving records, despite never being good enough to make a Pro Bowl. Congrats to him for all his richly-deserved success, but he wouldn't top my list.

 

[Fencer]

I'll say Welker, not just for his athletic merit, but because the team isn't going out of its way to overpay him.

At least let him get the ultimate competitive payoff for his efforts.

That said -- he personally had the chance already to make a tough catch and get his ring.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Why say that? Vince was immense against the Giants TWICE and that **** we call a secondary let him down despite the 'win together lose together' mentality in press conferences.

I'm sorry. I just see this differently.

It's not just a "press conference" mentality that a team took the field that day and a team lost. I don't buy any of this "who 'let down' whom" stuff when it comes to Championships. Pretty soon we're blaming the water boys.

On the other side of the ball, a team took the field and players, some likely and some unlikely, made plays in SB's XLII and XLVI. That's all there is to it in my mind. They deserved it as a team; we didn't.

Can we just move on?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I digressed. LOL. But basically, my point was that they giants still had to execute and they did.

Yep. And that's all she wrote.

 

[Creative Username]

I would say 7th all time in FG% is elite. Not his fault he has not had a chance to win the big one.

7th all time is deceptive. He's only kicked 165 field goals in his career. No, you're right. The Pats usually don't need him to make that clutch game winner. Maybe he shouldn't have that opportunity then... Wouldn't want to have him pull a Billy Cundiff.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

If you want to blame someone on that last drive, i'd go with ninkovich for going offside on 3rd and 7, making it 3rd and 2. However, the Giants still had to make a play and they did. It's easy to blame the secondary as a whole and there's so many what ifs. But you have to accept the close wins as well as the close losses. Tuck rule anyone?

It is what it is. That's what BB preaches, TB preaches, the whole team preaches and life preaches. Otherwise, your life is just sad and full of what ifs and regrets. Learn from the past, live in the present and hope for the future.

And let's not even mention the gut kick momentum killer of taking a safety on the first play from scrimmage when the D had just stuffed the Giants. I agree with you 100%, there is no point to such discussions. They are a waste of time and denigrate the game.

Opening day anyone?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I would say 7th all time in FG% is elite. Not his fault he has not had a chance to win the big one. Besides AV do you know how many kickers have had a "big" one in the big one. Yeah 3 (Jim O'brien and Scott Norwood).

You become spectacular by having a lot of game winning attempts. During AV years the Pats played a lot more close games.

I never hear AV mentioned anymore when talking about Gostkowski.

I dunno. I'm not sure how you decide a K is "elite." Seventh in Career FG% puts him behind Kaeding, Vanderjagt, Bironas, Graham, Gould and Hartley. Are they all elite? He's way down the list in FG's made (82nd), but that only says he's only played six seasons and plays for a team that tends to put the ball in the End Zone. He's been nearly flawless in PAT% (fifth all time) but he's way down the list of PAT's made (74th) too because of his young age.

So, I guess I'd say about Gostkowski that I'm damn glad he's the Pat's K, that I'm never nervous when he comes on to tack on the PAT, but that the jury is out on what he would do if everything was on the line in February (which is not to say he wouldn't nail it).

I do know that Number Four is going to Canton, however much or little we hear about him.

Not only has he put up solid numbers (eighth in career FG's made and 13th in career FG% over a 16 year career), but he made what is regarded as the greatest Kick under pressure in the history of the NFL (that breathtaking 45 yarder into a gale of a frozen ball that just dove over the cross bar and dropped like a rock three feet later sending the Snow Bowl into OT) and then went on to make the game winner in that game as well as in two SB's with time running out or down.

He might have had chances that others didn't or haven't, but when he had them he got the job done. How else do you measure greatness?

And, to answer your question, Number Four was the first person to kick a walk-off SB winner and, while there were a couple of seconds on the clock when he kicked his second one, he effectively repeated the feat. With those kicks, his stats and four rings, he is in a class by himself as a Kicker.

 

[Creative Username]

I dunno. I'm not sure how you decide a K is "elite." Seventh in Career FG% puts him behind Kaeding, Vanderjagt, Bironas, Graham, Gould and Hartley. Are they all elite? He's way down the list in FG's made (82nd), but that only says he's only played six seasons and plays for a team that tends to put the ball in the End Zone. He's been nearly flawless in PAT% (fifth all time) but he's way down the list of PAT's made (74th) too because of his young age.

So, I guess I'd say about Gostkowski that I'm damn glad he's the Pat's K, that I'm never nervous when he comes on to tack on the PAT, but that the jury is out on what he would do if everything was on the line in February (which is not to say he wouldn't nail it).

I do know that Number Four is going to Canton, however much or little we hear about him.

Not only has he put up solid numbers (eighth in career FG's made and 13th in career FG% over a 16 year career), but he made what is regarded as the greatest Kick under pressure in the history of the NFL (that breathtaking 45 yarder into a gale of a frozen ball that just dove over the cross bar and dropped like a rock three feet later sending the Snow Bowl into OT) and then went on to make the game winner in that game as well as in two SB's with time running out or down.

He might have had chances that others didn't or haven't, but when he had them he got the job done. How else do you measure greatness"

And, to answer your question, Number Four was the first person to kick a walk-off SB winner and, while there were a couple of seconds on the clock when he kicked his second one, he effectively repeated the feat. With those kicks and four rings, he is in a class by himself as a Kicker.

wow. All I was saying is that Gostkowski deserves way more credit than he gets. I personally do believe he is an elite kicker, but my point was that he doesn't get widely recognized as such.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

wow. All I was saying is that Gostkowski deserves way more credit than he gets. I personally do believe he is an elite kicker, but my point was that he doesn't get widely recognized as such.

But the "recognition" comment was in the context of what I regard as the absurd premise of this thread that someone can "deserve" a ring. That was what I was responding to and why I responded as I did.

He might or might not be "elite." I just don't know how you measure that for a K other than after at least ten seasons.

 

[Modest]

Every man on the Pats 53 player roster deserves a ring.

But if I had to single out one player- Welker.

 

[Creative Username]

But the "recognition" comment was in the context of what I regard as the absurd premise of this thread that someone can "deserve" a ring. That was what I was responding to and why I responded as I did.

He might or might not be "elite." I just don't know how you measure that for a K other than after at least ten seasons.

Someone can "deserve" a ring for the amount of production on a team that they produce, when the team doesn't go anywhere. No one player can wholly influence a team's success, although it may seem like it at times. Someone can deserve a ring when they go beyond what players normally do at their position to put their teams in a good place to win games. Look at Barry Sanders. Don't you think he "deserves" a ring? He went out and singlehandedly changed the Lions franchise (by saying this I mean he instilled some form of pride and fanbase in the short time he was there)

Well then we can agree that Ghost is in limbo, then. The jury's out until he's played for more than four seasons. And while I'm on the topic, no offense, but why ten seasons? It seems like a rather arbitrary number to me. Greatness can be measured over time, surely, but why for ten seasons?

And I would like to personally thank the topic maker, actually. I happen to think that this is the kind of thought-provoking topic that gets us through the final stretch before the regular season begins. They simply wanted to start an interesting conversation. Your opinion isn't needed if you think it's a worthless topic.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not having that sorry, Brady and the offense puts you in a position to win with barely any time left, the D gets huge pressure on Eli and he's virtually sacked and just lobs it up and you somehow let a scrub receiver catch it off his helmet? That's not on the D-Line that's on the secondary just like last February also.

Then you do not believe in the win together lose together philosophy and feel individual performances trump winning or losing.
That is fine, I just disagree

 

[Creative Username]

Then you do not believe in the win together lose together philosophy and feel individual performances trump winning or losing.
That is fine, I just disagree

I agree with the above disagreement...
We lost together because the offense that put up almost 40 points a game that year (and came relatively close this year) got held to 14 and 17 points. They lost as a collective to a lesser team.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I agree with the above disagreement...
We lost together because the offense that put up almost 40 points a game that year (and came relatively close this year) got held to 14 and 17 points. They lost as a collective to a lesser team.

Well, we do agree there. If you're assigning blame, you don't point to one series or play. You look at the whole game and, in this case on O it started with a Safety on the first play from scrimmage after the D had done its job and held the Giants.

 

[ivanvamp]

If they win it, they will all have deserved it.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Someone can "deserve" a ring for the amount of production on a team that they produce, when the team doesn't go anywhere. No one player can wholly influence a team's success, although it may seem like it at times. Someone can deserve a ring when they go beyond what players normally do at their position to put their teams in a good place to win games. Look at Barry Sanders. Don't you think he "deserves" a ring? He went out and singlehandedly changed the Lions franchise (by saying this I mean he instilled some form of pride and fanbase in the short time he was there)

Well then we can agree that Ghost is in limbo, then. The jury's out until he's played for more than four seasons. And while I'm on the topic, no offense, but why ten seasons? It seems like a rather arbitrary number to me. Greatness can be measured over time, surely, but why for ten seasons?

And I would like to personally thank the topic maker, actually. I happen to think that this is the kind of thought-provoking topic that gets us through the final stretch before the regular season begins. They simply wanted to start an interesting conversation. Your opinion isn't needed if you think it's a worthless topic.

We're just going to have to disagree on the whole "deserve" thing. Maybe it's semantics. I'd be willing to say that it's "unfortunate" that a certain player never won a ring, just like it's "unfortunate" that all time Great HOF'ers like Deacon Jones, Barry Sanders, Earl Campbell and Eric ****erson never even got a chance to play in a SB. But the notion that someone "deserves" a ring is foreign to me. There's one League Championship a year and it's won by the players who make the plays they have to make in that game. They alone have earned and "deserve" the championship.

On the specific case of Sanders, I'd say that he "deserves" to be called one of the greatest players ever to lace them up and step on the field on a Sunday afternoon and that he "deserves" to be a member of the HOF (of which there are a lot fewer than players who have won rings, BTW) and I also suspect he would be the first to say that he regrets that he doesn't have one but that he doesn't "deserve" a ring he didn't earn.

Agree on Gostkowski. He could end up deserving to be called "elite." Just too early to tell (and, I'm told that he doesn't like to be called "Ghost," BTW).

On your final snitty comment, the whole point of this board is that opinions, politely expressed, are always "needed;" there is an "Ignore" function if any of personally feels that s/he no longer "needs" to hear another individual's opinion or even the opinions of an entire thread. Ian alone can decide whether a person's opinions are consistently expressed in such a way that they are no longer welcome or "needed" on the Board.

I still think that the notion that a player "deserves" something that has to be fought for and won on the field is absurd; it might indeed be "unfortunate," as a said above, that one or other player doesn't have a ring, but I've been very clear on that above, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Creative Username]

We're just going to have to disagree on the whole "deserve" thing. Maybe it's semantics. I'd be willing to say that it's "unfortunate" that a certain player never won a ring, just like it's "unfortunate" that all time Great HOF'ers like Deacon Jones, Barry Sanders, Earl Campbell and Eric ****erson never even got a chance to play in a SB. But the notion that someone "deserves" a ring is foreign to me. There's one League Championship a year and it's won by the players who make the plays they have to make in that game. They alone have earned and "deserve" the championship.

On the specific case of Sanders, I'd say that he "deserves" to be called one of the greatest players ever to lace them up and step on the field on a Sunday afternoon and that he "deserves" to be a member of the HOF (of which there are a lot fewer than players who have won rings, BTW) and I also suspect he would be the first to say that he regrets that he doesn't have one but that he doesn't "deserve" a ring he didn't earn.

Agree on Gostkowski. He could end up deserving to be called "elite." Just too early to tell (and, I'm told that he doesn't like to be called "Ghost," BTW).

On your final snitty comment, the whole point of this board is that opinions, politely expressed, are always "needed;" there is an "Ignore" function if any of personally feels that s/he no longer "needs" to hear another individual's opinion or even the opinions of an entire thread. Ian alone can decide whether a person's opinions are consistently expressed in such a way that they are no longer welcome or "needed" on the Board.

I still think that the notion that a player "deserves" something that has to be fought for and won on the field is absurd; it might indeed be "unfortunate," as a said above, that one or other player doesn't have a ring, but I've been very clear on that above, so I'll leave it at that.

I very much agree with you that everyone who goes out and makes it in the big game definitely deserves it for all their hard work. And now I'll say that you could argue that each and every single player in the NFL deserves a ring for the effort that they put out on the field every single game (With some exceptions, no doubt) If you are a professional athlete, and I'll make the assumption that neither of us are, then you have to give it your best. And that's all you can expect from someone. But to say that they don't "deserve" a ring because they didn't win it... They still try their hardest to get to that point. In my books, that means they deserve it.

Perhaps we have different definitions of the word "deserve". But seeing as how you and I have different opinions, I won't press the matter any further.

on YOUR final snitty comment, you first posted and I quote "the recognition comment was in the context of what I regard as an absurd premise of this thread". Not really "politely expressed" if you ask me. Since when has anything as harmless as deserving a/ another superbowl ring been justified to be claimed absurd? You can't say that you "politely expressed" your opinion when you openly put down the thread starter.

The whole Sanders situation sheds some light on the other discussion going on within this thread. The fact that a team loses and wins as a team. I personally emphatically believe this statement, and in doing so I reinforce my point that every single team goes out and does their best to win the Superbowl. The fact of the matter is that we both enjoy different illusions of the word "deserve" when in reality I suspect that we both are in the wrong. Maybe some people don't deserve rings, and maybe some do. But I personally think that if you play in the NFL and each and every day you're practicing so that one day you can get that opportunity, then you DO deserve that ring. Because you're simply doing your job.

But even if I do get some demeaning self-contradictory reply, this has gone on long enough. Seriously. :spygate:

 

[Creative Username]

Well, we do agree there. If you're assigning blame, you don't point to one series or play. You look at the whole game and, in this case on O it started with a Safety on the first play from scrimmage after the D had done its job and held the Giants.

Exactly. And I stand by the fact that Brady could have just as easily thrown the ball away... Forever changing what could have been the best revenge-inducing Superbowl victory of all time... Forget Pittsburgh and Dallas. There was never a 19-0 season on the line.

 

[RayClay]

No one.

......

 

[jmt57]

There are a lot of players on this roster that have never won but deserve one and there are those that have one but their contributions merit another one.

Actually the only players on this roster that do have a ring are Wilfork (from his rookie year) and Brady.