Yeah, man, absolutely. People forget that Ringo was the most popular member in 1964 so they wouldn't have been as big without him. I have a friend who insists that the Beatles were big in NYC because most people felt Ringo was Jewish. I said to her that Ringo denied he was a Jew on the anthology. She said "He's a jew...he just doesn't know it, yet". We loved Ringo because he was one of us. When she said Ringo refused to play Washington, D.C. during Yom Kippur in 1965, i told her it was Sandy Koufax but she wouldn't listen. I then got a twenty minute lecture on how Jews all over Europe migrated to England in the early 1900's and Ringo is a jew he just doesn't know it.
Nonetheless, despite this, Ringo's central role in the group outside of the frivilous disappeared by 1967 and the touring group. While he was a good mate and kept a steady beat, he was very replaceable.
(although in later years - let's face it - he was a gifted drummer but he was happy to get the gig).
George gave the Beatles much more than Ringo. And his influence on a guitar perspective is amazing. Plus, all the eastern stuff and the mediation and psychedilia. Plus, his later songs were brilliant. However, i would add any number of guitarists to the Beatles and they would have been a very excellent team.
So, Beatles would not have been as big but would have gotten over and would have been worshipped as revered.