[jthig32]

I haven't seen anyone use the longevity argument. Of course Emmit was great. He had great, great stats. He was a great player. But he also had a great QB, great WR, great Fullback, great TE, and the greatest OLine every assembled, and that isn't even arguable.

Barry had TERRIBLE coaches his entire career (everyone remember Fontes?), had TERRIBLE QB's, and had a very average line. Not only that but he very rarely had the pleasure of running behind a fullback, because the Lions almost always played three wides under Fontes and Ross. Now some people claim this was Barry's best system. That's bs. The fact is this is the ONLY way they could get an extra defender out of the box, by forcing someone out onto the slot receiver and on the TE.

Still, despite ALL these differences in supporting cast, Barry had every bit as productive a career, taking away TD's and rings. The TD's are very much affected by the Lion's offense vs the Cowboys', the obviously the rings are very much affected by the supporting cast.

Now, about the debate of rings being the tie breaker of great players. You'll notice that all of your examples were Quarterbacks. That is because, in general, this is the only position held to the rings standard. That is the position expected to "lead" a team to the playoffs and a ring.

Also, your argument about Manning especially and Marino to a certain extent, does not translate well, because, especially in the case of Manning, you have a team that is very, very talented, and is expected to compete every year, and yet still can not get over the hump against a team with arguably less talent. When, in God's name, were the Lions expected to be contenders or could be considered to have better talent than any of the contenders?

Again, put Barry Sanders on the Cowboys of the mid 90's, and we are not having this debate. Period.