Is anyone will to admit the "he has a ring" argument is ridiculous?

If "Rings" are your sole measure of quality, then.... yes, it is ridiculous. After all, Jeff Hostedler, Mark Rypen, Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer all "have rings" as a starting QB. Does that make them the equal of Peyton Manning or better than Dan Marino? No, of course not. Is Ben Roethlisberger a better QB and Steve Young? Obviously, no.

But, if you're looking at two similar players (say, Cam Newton and Colin Kapernick) and one has a ring and the other doesn't, then you're going to look more favorably on a guy who has proven that he can win in the playoffs, and in the Super Bowl.

I think the ring arguement can be logical and stupid.The logical way would be,the QB played great in the playoffs and lead his team to the SuperBowl.Your legacy is measured by your playoff success,not how good you play in the regular season.That's what really matters.The stupid way would be to say a crappy QB on a great team is better than another QB who played great but was on a bad team and never won a ring(Trent Dilfer vs Dan Marino).Kaepernick,by the way,can throw the ball!He will be an elite QB later in his career.

Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. Take Tony Romo for instance (and believe me, i'm not just saying this because you're a Cowboy fan). He has been a solid quarterback throughout alot of his career, however he suffers in the post season (or getting to it). For that reason Tony Romo can't be compared to Peyton Manning, Tom, Brady, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, and so on. However the example you provided also proves that sometimes the whole ring argument doesn't make sense.

Here's the best way I can sum it up, using a quote from Joe Montana. "In the regular season quarterbacks make their paychecks. In the post season they make their legacies."

It was dumb to begin with, much like the "MVP" stuff. One is a team achievement, the other a popularity contest with the sports writers. I don't think anyone believes that Ben Roethlisberger is better than Peyton Manning because he has more "rings" nor should someone believe that Kurt Warner is as good as or better than Joe Montana because they have the same amount of "MVP's".

Would michael jordan or bill russell have been considered as great if they never won a title? Did Jordan become known as the greatest b-ball player of all time because of his exploits in the regular season or post-season.

You need to perform when it matters the most. That's what counts. Rings prove greatness, the regular season just displays the tip of it.

kaepernick is good because he led his team to the super bowl in his rookie season.

btw game @ falcons was kaepernick's 9th carrer start

yes it is ridiculous in NHL, kings goalie jonathan bernier played in none of the playoff games last season, his name is on the cup, so is he the best?

Like eli manning the guy has two rings, and credit he was the mvp, but he is REALLY better than dan marino, eli had so many crappy years, I say no.

That wont be a problem because 49ers will not win.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t-r2HASo5M&feature...