So now you're valuing second best player rings on the same level as best player rings? (I really don't like the term first option, since it means first offensive option, who isn't always the best player on the team, as in the case of Bill Russell, Magic, etc).
If so, where does the "slippery slope" end? 3rd best player? 4th best player?
Pick a lane:
Either give best player rings more credit than others, or count them all the same.
And I know Kobe fans don't like to do the former because it devalues 3 of his rings, which prompted you guys to invent the whole "1A/1B" bull .
Now you know why I call rings team accomplishments and leave it at that. Too many variables to consider. Individual player comparisons should be decided by individual performance, which is why Wilt ranks consistently above Russell on many all-time great lists despite having 9 less rings. Oscar Robertson, as well.