If Jim Kelly would have won all 4 Super Bowls he played in he would be considered top 5 easy...but he lost those 4 games....so he isn't even top 10
That's my beef with rings and how valuable they are in everyones mind when determining who the greatest is in football.
In basketball its a different thing, because one player truly has the oppurtunity to put his stamp on a game...much more than a quarterback in football. Hell the QB only plays a half the game, the other half he's sitting down on the bench.
You abouslutly need great players around you in football to succeed and win a championship. The best player in football doesn't entitle you to a .500 record; not even 5 wins. In basketball it's different... a basketball player can effect the game in all facets, leaving much more room to leave his stamp on it.
That's why team oriented awards in football, such as rings, shouldn't be factored in nearly as much when making an all-time list.
Jim Kelly was Jim Kelly, four rings or one...or none. Just like Peyton is Peyton...I feel he's no "greater" or "better" because he has a ring now. The fact of the matter is that it took a superb team effort for a ring... nothing that Peyton did or did not do.