Does losing a Super Bowl hurt a players legacy more than never getting to a Super Bowl?
When players finally retire and are possibly up for consideration for the Hall of Fame, I would argue that if you were to look at two players with identical stats and one got to a Super Bowl and lost, and one never got to a Super Bowl, the latter player would have a better shot at getting inducted. Sure, we can look at exceptions like Jim Kelly, and Fran Tarkenton but in my opinion the exceptions only serve to further prove the rule.
The HOF caliber players who never got to the Super Bowl benefit greatly from having the "Good player stuck on a bad team" argument in their corner. Frankly I think history would not remember players like Barry Sanders, Warren Moon and Cris Carter AS FONDLY had these guys gone to a Super Bowl and lost but they hold a special place in the hearts of fans because the eternal question of "what if?" always exists.
And to finally rap up my supporting points, when we look at the discussion for greatest QB of all time, and more specifically when we discuss Montana V Brady, the number one argument Montana proponents throw out is that Montana is perfect in Super Bowls (4-0) as opposed to Brady (6-2) but that in my mind is flawed logic because it is like saying an Olympic athlete with 4 gold medals is greater than an Olympic athlete with 6 gold medals and 2 silver medals and yet this flawed logic holds up in the football world. Why?