Synthetic

I know most of them are insane  and just cant accept they lost to Clemson.

Regarding the Ring argument, to me it's more important in Basketball because a Basketball player can play both sides of the ball and have a say on every play. In Football, a QB for example cant play Defense or SPTeams - Football is more of a team sport. Give Peyton Manning the Steelers Defense of the 70's it wouldn't of been fair. Do I think winning at least 1 Ring is important for a QB, I do because it shows that QB can win on the biggest stage but it's not the only measure of a QB's greatness. Stats and MVPs are a huge measure as well.

Basketball is a team sport too. All those big names with rings, they didn't win anything on their own without a team around them.

You could make that same argument about the San Antonio Spurs when they won the 4 championships. Plug any player on there and they probably get a ring too. 

In basketball, the ring arguments are so much worse cause the "only two" argument used against Wilt, or the newly recent "only three" that is thrown in LeBron's face. 

Quote

Do I think winning at least 1 Ring is important for a QB, I do because it shows that QB can win on the biggest stage but it's not the only measure of a QB's greatness.

Crap quarterbacks get rings too....Mark Rypien, no one knows that name....

QB don't even matter to some teams: 1985 Chicago, 1991 Washington, 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2015 Broncos - all could've won with any QB playing. Last year was absolutely pathetic with how Manning won it with posting the worst stats of a SB winning QB ever. 

I'll always say the ring argument in basketball is way worse. If you're a QB like Peyton proved last year, you can completely play like crap and still win it all with a great defense there to bail you out when you make mistakes....In the NBA, you lose in the Finals, you're a choker regardless how much more talented the teams are that you have to deal with (see Jerry West and his 0-8 record against the Celtics)