Registry Pet Peeve

Fabfrank

It doesn't happen often, but when it does it can be annoying. I'm talking about adding cards to a set without polling or asking the set members. It's exceptionally annoying when your set is at 100% one day, than is incomplete the next. Earlier in the year J. Taylor was added to the All-Time Great Ruchers set. I believe he is worthy, but I didn't know he was added till after the fact. This past week J. Smith was added to the ALL-Time Great WR set. Again, no poll. No email asking the current top 5 what they think/or which RC card should be considered. I wonder if it's just one collector requesting a card for inclusion or if a player reachs a certain benchmark that automatically includes them. Either way, there should be a dialogue between PSA and the top 5 or 10 set builders of a certain set if they are going to make any changes to a set.

AISAVDBBALLINPHILLY

From what I understand, PSA does not require a poll be taken for additions to player sets. As far as basic sets go, PSA determines which cards can go in basic sets and which can't. If you are trying to stay at 100% or in competition with someone, it can be disconcerting when you look at your set and suddenly you have dropped below 100% and maybe into a different position as well. I know because it recently happened to me. It wouldn't be so bad if PSA wasn't two months behind in their player set additions but with almost three weeks to go before the deadline who knows how many cards will be added at the last minute.

mikeschmidt

I'm with you, Frank. There seems to be a lot of discontent on this subject as of late.... your examples are futher points on the matter

BugOnTheRug

Based on the changing nature of Master player sets of late, I will never start one. I would NOT be happy if suddenly cards popped up and my percentage complete went down. It's one thing to have the truly indulged registry set folks suggest and steer logical changes; quite another for Joe Q. Public requesting every Tom/Dick/Harry card of a certain player be included.

It even makes me wonder if the changes are dealer based instead of collector based. Star cards come to mind................

BOTR

imafishinnut

My complaint is with regard to the Basic sets. PSA has not set any firm guidelines on what may or may not be included in the Basic sets. A while back, I requested that Sportflic cards be added to the Wade Boggs Basic Set. Before doing so, I looked at a bunch of the other basic player sets and confirmed that Sportflic cards were generally included. As such, I didn't see a problem with my request. When PSA added the Sportflic cards, one of the other Boggs collectors blew a gasket. As a result, PSA put out a poll and the Boggs collectors decided what cards they wanted to be included. In the end, Sportflic cards and all of the Chrome and the like were excluded. My understanding is that the Boggs Basic Set is now pretty much set in stone.

With regard to Master sets, you have to do them knowing that they are impossible to complete. There are always rare and oddball issues that are currently not included that can be added to the Master sets. This is especially true with modern players and generally true with vintage players. In addition, there will always be collectors who want these oddball issues included. Personally, I find the Master sets fun because I realize that it will ALWAYS be a work in progress. However, I know this is why many collectors don't do Master sets.

Mike

AlanAllen

This has been a problem for years, and there is no sign it's going to change. I talked to both BJ and Joe at last year's National luncheon about the need for firm rules on player sets and key card sets, and they both said something to the effect of "we have rules, but..." if a majority want in one way the rules can be bent, or if it has always been one way and someone does not want it changed the rules can be bent, or if Joe feels like it the rules can be bent. Hell, we talked right here on this board about 4 players that deserved to be added to the rushers set, and then one is just added out of the blue with no input from the registrants? It's far, far too subjective. Same problem with "commons only" submissions. It's a hopelessly broken process, and it's why I haven't updated my specialty sets in months.

donnnster

what timing! i just saw a 1996 denny's hologram card included in the maddux basic set I am slowly compiling...oh well, just wanted to vent along with u folks!

carew4me

I have also been bothered by this.

The Rod carew Master set had single Hostess cards added which is fine (even though the weighting is wrong).

Then, the same years were added again but this time full panels

This makes no since, once I get a 75 hostess card of Carew that should be it.

I cringe when I think of what other additions are lurking yet to be added.

envoy98

1992 Collector's Edge Jimmy Smith? I was wondering why I was at 73% complete on that set all of a sudden. You can probably figure out who requested that card based on who's at 100% when nobody else is. I wish they would put a poll out or something like they did with the Heisman set. I was asked about the Jason White card, I'm not happy with the card they chose but at least I had input. I had the same thing happen to me on the AT Rushers set, I was at 100% and then dropped, luckily I found a nice raw Jim Taylor on ebay and picked it up for $23 while everyone else was bidding the PSA 8 version up to double smr. Turns out the raw one I got pulled an 8 and saved me $70.

I'm selling off a lot of the cards I had that aren't in the All Time (Position) sets. I'm keeping my Raiders, Vikings and Steelers along with SB MVP's, Heisman and All Time position sets. The other All-Time team sets and POTD sets are getting scrapped. I can't keep up with all of them as it is and this is a reason I'll never chase the basic or master player sets. I actually added some Randy Moss cards to his master set in the hopes someone would see them and buy or trade for them. Same with my hockey sets. No luck yet though.

I wonder why I was polled on the Heisman set but not for the WR set...

Carew29

The Rod carew Master set had single Hostess cards added which is fine (even though the weighting is wrong).

Then, the same years were added again but this time full panels

This makes no since, once I get a 75 hostess card of Carew that should be it.

I cringe when I think of what other additions are lurking yet to be added"

Carewforme--i do agree to a certain extent. As long as it falls in between the Players years (Carew 67'-86')
It doesn't bother me. But if anyone starts adding all that new crap, and i mean CRAP, From 87' to present, i will just put in my description that my set will only include those cards in between those years. I still have some 15 to 20 cards that fall in between his playing years that are not listed on the Master set. (Example--PSA only has listed 1 All-Star game Program insert from 1983, there is also a 1981,1982,1984, and a 1985 insert yet to be graded. I have them and they will be going in next week. So that is 4 more to the Master Set.

aro13

I always remember receiving emails from PSA asking about additions in sets that I was registered. Maybe the lack of response from such emails caused them to stop asking.

AlanAllen

I've always been asked, except for this one time. In the vast majority of cases however, set composition should NOT be determined by poll. This will lead to the Rickey Henderson basic set having Sportflics, but not the Wade Boggs, even though they were in the same playing-days issued Sportflics set. That doesn't make a lick of sense. New rushers should be added when they hit 10,000 yards, as was agreed years ago. Is Jim Taylor a better rusher now than he was 6 months ago? How is he an all-time great now, and wasn't in March? Ridiculous.

Joe

NickM

Adding players into HOF/MVP/Cy Young/ROY sets or other sets designated by membership in some specific group that's readily ascertainable should be automatic. When it comes to sets like HOF rookie cards, unless it's clear which card should be chosen, PSA should defer to the membership (and it's going to get a lot more unclear over the next few years).
As far as sets like All-Time Greatest [Position] or All-Time Greatest [Team], PSA should generally defer to the membership on both whom and which card; however, there are some players who become no-brainers for inclusion.

Jimmy Smith has hit that point. He's now 12th all-time in catches, with over 800, and will probably be 10th within 1 game (3 catches ties him for 10th, 7 catches ties him for 9th), and 14th in receiving yards. Isaac Bruce has also hit that point. He's 13th in receptions and 12th in receiving yards. Two other receivers have also hit that point: Terrell Owens and Randy Moss (both of whom could reach 100 receiving TDs this season). As to each of these 4, PSA should not feel a need to ask set collectors whether the player should be added, but should consult with collectors as to which should be the chosen card for the set, unless it is abundantly clear from the prices of the player's rookie cards (as it likely is with Moss).

Similarly for the Greatest RBs set, how could you countenance NOT putting Jim Taylor in there - at the time he retired he was second only to Jim Brown in rushing yards. He is a no-brainer for it. Because his rookie card pictures someone else, PSA should have checked with collectors to see how they treated the situation (i.e., which card to include), but I have no problem with the unilateral decision to add him.

Nick

JoeBanzai

Hi guys, or maybe I should say "please don't kill me".......because unless I am missing something here, there will be several people who will be really mad at me regarding the Harmon Killebrew basic set.

Please let me know if I am mistaken on the changes I will be eventually asking about.

1958 Senators Team card should be removed. Players are listed on the card, and Killebrew is NOT listed, (Killebrew was a "bonus" player and was with the team for the first two years of his career, and sent down to the minors in 1957. I am assuming the 1958 team photo used by Topps was taken in 1957).

1947-66 Exhibits needs two poses added; fielding and portrait.

1961 Topps Stamp panel Killebrew/White added.

1965 OPC #'s 3 & 5 HR & RBI Leaders added.

1971 Milton Bradley added.

There may be more! I have been collecting Killebrew for the last 17 years and have tried to obtain every issue. I have nice copies of all of the above listed cards and probably some more OPC's and Venezeulans that I will eventually be sending in for grading.

Since there already are examples of every one of these already in the basic set, I am a little confused if I am supposed to put this up to some kind of a vote.

My feelings are you are not really at 100% if there are cards out there that "belong" in the set.

Okay guys blast away.

JoeBanzai

Carew29

That stuff would follow under a "Harmon Killebrew Master Set".

1420sports

I think the above mentioned Killebrew cards should be in a Master set, not Basic.

JoeBanzai

Sorry, how do my thoughts apply to adding to the "Master" set?

JoeBanzai

Fabfrank

Nick M- You are right. J. Taylor should be in the All-time rushers set The problem is that he didn't make the cut when the set was originally put together. New additions (such as C. Martin) were added once PSA decided that any rusher gaining 10, 000 yds would automatically join the set. J. Taylor hasn't gained many yards recently
That's where the problem lies. If he wasn't worthy when the set was first created, why 3 years after the fact is he now included?? The haphazard method in which cards are added (especially in the case of the Jimmy Smith card) makes it an exercise in frustration.
How about the reverse? How about when a card is removed from a set? It happened with the All-Time QB set. K. Warner was part of the original set. His Rc was not from abrand that I collect, but since it was part of the set I went and bought it (I think I spent $80 bucks for a PSA 10). A year later some people decide that Warner shouldn't be in the set and he was bounced. If he wasn't worthy to begin with, why was he added??
I know this isn't an exact science. I just want some input when any changes are going to be proposed.
Any example of how smooth this can be id the exercise in putting together the ALL-Time NFL Defense set. Check out that thread.

JoeBanzai

Fabfrank, it would seem to me that all-time sets of players is going to be one that is going to change periodically as players enter the league and dominate for a long enough time to be considered one of the best of all time.

I too would be frustrated at a player making an all-time set, like your example of Kurt Warner, the collector then buys his card, then the player is removed.
I agree completely with your statement that if a player is deemed worthy of being an all-time great, he should remain in the set.

I am a newer member here, so I apologize for my ignorance, but exactly who should get to vote on players being added to a set? I have the fourth best all time Killebrew set, would I get a vote? I am at less than 50% completed, but I have all of the cards in the set, and obviously more that I believe should be in the set.

It would seem to me that if a "Sportflic" card is generally in one players set, they should be in all of the sets!?!? Kind of similar to the Warner issue, in or out.

What is your opinion on my question on the Killebrew additions I will be proposing? If OPC's are in for some years of the master set, shouldn't they automatically be in for all of the years?

By the way, how about the Salada and Shirriff plastic "coins"......and while I am on a roll, if the "Greatest Moments" card is in there, how about the "Action All-Star Stickers" or the candy lids from 1973?

I would appreciate any feedback from anyone on my questions.

Thank you,

JoeBanzai

NickM

Frank - I think Kurt Warner was prematurely added. In the rare circumstance where a player was added who turns out to appear to be a mistake, I think PSA should discuss the matter with collectors of the set before removing him.

I must say I do not like the idea of adding players to an All-Time Greats set shortly before the Registry Awards deadline - it can lead to set manipulation.

JoeBanzai - all of the cards you mentioned should be in the Master Set - if you have them, request that they be added (easiest way is to input the cert number), and PSA will include them when staff gets to your request (they are going through all the backlog of requests).

Nick

JoeBanzai

Thanks Nick,

I don't have all the cards graded as of yet, but when they are graded, I will add them.

I agree that Warner was added prematurely. Maybe he will make a big comeback and get back in! Save those Warner cards.

Have fun with the hobby.

JoeBanzai

sixdart

Joe and Frank,

At first, there was the All-Time Rushers set. Then came the request for a 10,000 yard rushers set. Because the sets were essentially the same, PSA merged them.

Jim Taylor falls under the category of All-Time rushers, such as Perry, Sayers and Hornung. If Hornung is in, then Taylor has to be. Besides having superior rushing stats over Horning, he made the HOF 10 years earlier ... Taylor was elected in 1976 (4X nominee) and Horning 1986 (12X nominee). In fact, Jim should have been on the original list prior to Horning.

Paul Horning Stats vs. Jim Taylor Stats

I still advocate for Steve Van Buren and George Mc Afee (the Gale Sayers of his generation) being on that list.

With that said, PSA should not be adding cards 2 weeks prior to the Registry Awards cut off.

carew4me

Any all-time rushers set without Jim Taylor is a fraud.

AlanAllen

My beef is not with the inclusion of Jim Taylor in the set. My beef is with the seemingly arbitrary methods used to add cards to sets.

Joe

Fabfrank

Sixdart- Thanks for clarifying the J. Taylor issue and the 10, 000 yd rusher issue. I remember the issue and the discussions more clearly now. But that just reinforces my point. J. Taylor was added after it was discussed and the majority agreed. J. Smith just shows up in the set one day with no explanation or discusssion.

Like AlanAllen said "My beef is with the seemingly arbitrary methods used to add cards to sets"

I totally agree.

JasP24

Sorry for my delayed response, but i think i can shed some light on the subject...

I requested the Jimmy Smith card to be added to the All-Time WR greats set. I spoke to BJ and Cosetta about adding him BEFORE THE SEASON and was told to let them know when he reaches the 800 reception club and they would add him. I also requested Isaac Bruce, but since he doesn't have 800 receptions yet, I guess that's why he hasn't been added thus far.

I assumed they would send a poll as they have in the past, but then I saw the card added and I figured making the 800 receptions was enough since every other WR with 800 catches is in the set (Ellard, Fryar are 2 examples). Much like the 10,000 yard rushers, although Corey Dillon was added LAST year before he eventually surpassed the 10,000.

Bottom line is that Jimmy Smith deserves to be included based on his stats and pro bowls. Isaac Bruce will deseve to be included once he hits 800 catches as well. As far as the card goes, the Collector's Edge is the most valuable of Jimmy Smith's rookie cards, which was always the criteria for which card should be used of a certain player. Go to beckett.com and search Jimmy Smith 1992 and you'll see where i get my numbers(SMR doesnt list any Jimmy Smith RC's).

Lastly, the only card i've seen removed from any of these sets was Kurt Warner from the QB set and the 1987 Jim Kelly replaced with 1984 USFL Jim Kelly on the HOF set. Both of which WERE sent out via poll asking all registered set owners if they were in agreement.

Anyway, sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings or anyone's 100%...But the All-Time Great sets as well as the HOF RC set will be forever evolving. It doesnt take much research to figure out which cards will be added to those sets in the near future. The next guy to 10,000 yards probably won't get a poll question either.

JasP24

NickM

Isaac Bruce is 14 catches away from 800 (and 111 yards away from 12000).

Here are the active players who are close to 800 catches (stats current through last weekend's games):
I Bruce 786
K McCardell 774
R Smith 740
M Faulk 732
T Owens 706

JasP - no quarrel with you on this, but is what Beckett says reflected in eBay reality for the prices of Smith rookies?

Nick

envoy98

So is Marshall Faulk going to end up in the All Time Receivers list too? Please tell me no. Also, if the "Most valuable RC" is the one that is included, why then are the SP Authentic rookies of Moss and Manning in all of these sets while the contenders are left out? Certainly the SP Authentic is more plentiful with 1998 copies of each...is that why? (And don't get me wrong, I would prefer both the SPA"s over Contenders anyway). Also, why was Jason White's Topps Draft Pick & Prospects Chrome card chosen as the heisman inclusion instead of Donruss Elite? The Elite is a more valuable rookie, still relatively plentiful, more difficult in higher grade and the "Chrome" versions of DP&P are actually "Inserts", not RC's as they are included 1/pk. I disagreed with that one...

My problem is that we were polled for the Heisman set, and not polled for some of the others. It would be nice to get a heads up prior to the card being added and having some input. It would also be nice if certain cards weren't just added a week or two before the registry awards, not that I was in the running for #1 @75% on any of them anyway, but if I had been, I'd be a pretty PO'd by it.

JasP24

NickM, thanks for the active receptions list. I'm already tracking the same, but it gives you an idea of how close some of those guys are to reaching the 800 catch plateau, which looks to be an automatic inclusion to the WR set, just like 10,000 yards for the RB set...

Since I own ALL of Jimmy Smith's RC's, I can tell you that yes, the Collector's Edge cost me the most. The black border probably makes it a bit tougher to find in high grade than say his Upper Deck RC...

Envoy98, Faulk nor Shannon Sharpe will end up in the WR set, because they AREN'T WR's...Gotta be a WR to be included...

Also, the 1998 Playoff Contenders that are in the SMR as being more valuable than the SP Authentic are the AUTOGRAPHED versions. I know it doesn't state it in the SMR, but if you've seen how much the regular 1998 Contender Tickets sell for you will see what I am saying...And no auto'd/jersey type cards are included in those sets...

I can't speak on the Heismann set, as i didn't have a hand in the production of that set, but I agree many cards are not the most valuable there...

Lastly, as far as timing is concerned, (and I'm only talking about the Jimmy Smith addition) it had more to do with when he passed the 800 catch milestone than anything else. If you would like I can send you the e-mail traffic I had with Cosetta BEFORE THE SEASON regarding adding the card to the set. I was told PSA would wait until he surpassed 800...MOSH is winning that set anyway, and no one will get close even WITH the Jimmy Smith card.

Not sure exactly when PSA decides to poll and when they don't...My hypothesis is that if/when Joe O. says the guy should be added 100%(i.e. Jim Taylor RC) or if the player reaches a particular milestone (10,000 yards rushing) those are automatic. If there is a questionable addition, like say the USFL Jim Kelly instead of the 1987 Jim Kelly on the HOF set, they send out a poll and follow user preference. Just my take on it...

Not sure why anyone NEEDS a heads up that a card will be added in the future...Its all in the numbers..Does anyone need to be told to go buy Reggie White's RC prior to his HOF induction next year??And also, cards can and have been changed if they are believed to be the incorrect card..Anyone can e-mail PSA and ask for a card to be changed/added/deleted. If PSA has a question on it, they will usually send out a poll..

Anyway, best of luck.
Jason

Fabfrank

The reason I was ticked Jason is because it was never said that 800 receptions was going to be the criteria for receivers. When 10,000 yds was set as the bench mark for rushing it was discussed (briefly) and than agreed upon. The 800 receptions criteria was arbitrarily reached without any input. But if that is the benchmark now for receiving that's okay. Just let the participants know the rules.

dalew

My wife works in a cheese factory.

Too bad she doesn't work in a wine factory also, so you could have some cheese with your wine.

Dale

JasP24

Frank,

I don't know for sure that it is the benchmark. I'm only assuming based on the fact I was told he wouldn't be added until he surpassed 800, and the card showed up in the set with no poll immediately following his 800th catch game...

I don't remeber any of us really having a say in the 10,000 yard bench mark. As I remember it, AlanAllen (Joe T.) requested a 10,000 yard club set and PSA decided to mesh that set with the All-Time Rushers set since they were so similar. Again, a PSA call more than a group decision like the All-Time Defense or the HOF RC sets. Maybe someone requested an 800 reception set in the past??Wasn't me...lol

My main goal is to have the right cards of the right players in these sets since these are the sets I am collecting. I honestly don't care how or why or when they get there as long as the cards that deserve to be there are in...Jimmy Smith deserved it before the season started IMO, and Isaac Bruce does as well...They both have the stats, the pro bowls, all the accolades to be there right along side guys like Henry Ellard and Irving Fryar.... UNLIKE say Kurt Warner or even a Tom Brady who just don't have the career longevity yet to become a permanent addition to those sets.

The J. Smith card isnt all the hard to find, nor is it expensive so it gives you something to search for..Won't help you get past MOSH but thats another story...lol

Take care,
Jason

sixdart

If I remember correctly, CE distributed 100,000 cards per player with its inaugural issue. The card backs are serial #'d of 100,000 (dot matrix) and were constructed from some kind of plastic. It's Jimmy's most attractive card (black bordered) and should be fairly easy to find in high grade.

envoy98

Jason - I wasn't serious about Faulk, although now that you mention it, I was curious about Sharpe. BTW, I wasn't trying to imply anything with my comment earlier. The timing kinda sucks, but I thought I was only stating the obvious. I wasn't tyring to bust your b@lls or anything. I apologive if it came across that way. You've helped me as much as anybody with my sets and I appreciate it.

I honestly didn't know the All-Time sets had a benchmark, I figured out the Rushers must be 10k yards, was not sure about Receivers, QB's or Defense. Are their specific benchmarks on the QB and Defense sets? Maybe I should just go search those threads again.

As for the Contenders cards, I realize the 98's are more valuable because they are autographed and in much shorter supply. What confuses I suppose, is that they use the contenders auto cards for the Heisman sets. Ie. Ricky Williams, Eric Crouch, Chris Weinke & Ron Dayne. They all have <1000 print runs but with the exception of Ricky Williams, they also carry a pricetag of <$60 raw. With Weinke an SP Authentic isn't possible because it was the super thick patch version that they don't have a holder for.

In regards to the older players, most have only one true RC and the decision is easy as to which card to add. My question was with the modern cards, (Post 1980) that have several brands to choose from.

JasP24

No offense taken envoy, just giving out what info i have on it...

I agree about the Heisman set...Not sure who initially requested it or why they chose the cards they did. If I were you, I would e-mail Sandbox with the cards that SHOULD be in the set if we are looking for consistency throughout. They will likely send out a poll, but considering alot of cards would need to be changed, you probably wouldn't get the majority vote.

As far as I know, The All-Time Defense set is the only one of the All-Time QB/RB/WR/DEF sets that was discussed and compiled here on the message board prior to going live. The All-Time RB/QB and WR sets were requested along time ago, before I ever found the Registry. We (members of this message board) have discussed corrections and additions in the past that eventually got implemented. I think the RB set still lacks some of the old timers like Steve Van Buren, but for the most part is a solid set. When the 10,000 yard set was requested, PSA thought it was so similar to the All-Tiem Rushers set, that they decided to combine them. I don't know of any benchmarks for the other sets. I now assume 800 catches gets you on the WR set. The QB set doesnt seem to have any benchmarks since guys like Testaverde have a ton of stats but aren't included. I think the QB and Defensive sets are more subjective, but are pretty much set in stone except for any current/future stars (like Peyton or Brady) who will more than likely be added down the road.

Its a tough call as far as which RC to get for those future guys. The rule of thumb for the HOF RC set is that no inserts/autos/jersey specialty type cards will be added. Only the most valuable regular base issues. I would hope they would follow the same guidelines on the All-Time sets. For cards 1994-2000 I would think SP would be the main card being used for most players. After 2000, who knows...So many autod/jersey type cards out there, its going to be tough to come to a consensus on which to add. I would hope that when the time comes, we will get a poll, or we will have an opportunity to discuss it here before seeing a card get added that shouldn't be. If it's the right card and player (Corey Dillon, Jim Taylor, Jimmy Smith are examples) then I wouldn't think most collectors would have a problem. If I saw 2001 LaDanian Tomlinson get added to the RB set tomorrow, yes i would have a problem with it...Because he hasn't made "the list" just yet in my opinion. The question to ask is "If this guy gets hurt tomorrow and never plays again, does he deserve to be on the set?" that's what happened with getting the Kurt Warner card deleted. PSA added him to the set WAY before he was deserving. I wouldn't want to see that happen again (card get deleted)...

Best of luck,
Jason

shagrotn77

I'm actually the one who requested that Jim Taylor be added to the all-time rushers set. I pleaded my case to Cosetta. She ran it by Joe. Case closed. I think Taylor was the one glaring omission from the set. I also believe he should be the last retired player to be added. To be honest, I'm not thrilled that Hornung is in there. The stats just aren't there. Not by a long shot. Csonka IMHO is a little questionable as well. This isn't me lobbying for them to be booted or anything. Just my thoughts on one of my favorite registry sets. Also, for those who are keeping tabs, Edgerrin James is next in line to eclipse the 10,000-yard mark, which means automatic inclusion in the set.

NickM

shag - what about Steve Van Buren, who was the all-time leader in rushing TDs until Jim Brown and Jim Taylor came along? IMO he's quite deserving.

Nick

shagrotn77

<< <i>shag - what about Steve Van Buren, who was the all-time leader in rushing TDs until Jim Brown and Jim Taylor came along? IMO he's quite deserving.
Nick >>



I have to admit that I don't know too much about running backs from the 1940's and early 1950's, but in looking at Van Buren's stats I can see where a case could be made for his inclusion. Maybe we can add him and boot Hornung

Seriously though, can anybody tell me why Hornung is held in such high regard, and why he's in the Hall of Fame? Did he make the same deal with the devil that Lynn Swann did? Hornung ran for 3,711 yards in his ENTIRE career. Add in the 1,480 career receiving yards and that's less than 5,200 career yards from scrimmage. I know the Golden Boy has the single-season scoring record because he was Green Bay's kicker too, but to me that is a terribly overrated achievement. If you let the 15th best running back in the game today kick field goals too, he'd likely fly past Hornung's mark. Priest Holmes almost did it without having to kick the ball! I know Hornung had a distinguished college career too, but I think his pro career was ho hum at best.

JasP24

Hornung is definitely over-rated...

I think its mostly about the mystique of what team he played for and which years he did well. He came into the league as a Heisman winner, so he was already being hyped...At the same time, the All-Time great set is kinda like the HOF..It isn't ALL about stats...He was a big name, playing for the best team, best coach of the time...

I disagree on Csonka..Had he played his entire career in the NFL, he would have been very close to the 10,000 yard mark. He played big in big games, and watching Csonka completely flatten defenders is a microcosm of the 70's NFL...much like the Steelers Defense...Csonka was one of the greats.

Don't forget that Joe Perry was a recent addition to the set as well...He was another that deserved to be there..Of the HOF RB's that i think still belong in the set??

1-Steve Van Buren
2-Bronco Nagurski

I think the argument has always been whether or not to include pre-war RBs in the set..We have them in the QB set, why not RB? Both of those guys were dominant RBs of their era..

Jason

envoy98

I agree with you about Hornung, statistically one could argue that Terry Allen be included in the set. He set the NFL Rushing TD record back in '95(?), had 8000+ rushing yards but never really stayed healthy, and only broke the 1,000 yard mark a handful of times. I can appreciate him not being in there, and no, I don't think he deserves to be... I am just comparing him stat-wise. So I'm not sure what the qualifying factor for Hornung was.

The All Time Rushers set was my first set and was the reason I got involved and excited about the registry in the first place so that one will always be high on my list of ones to complete in high grade. (I have a ways to go, but I'm currently #9

I think it's great to see everyone discussing these things, while it can be very competitive, it's good to know we all appreciate these sets and want to only put in the best for them.

shagrotn77

<< <i>I disagree on Csonka..Had he played his entire career in the NFL, he would have been very close to the 10,000 yard mark. >>



Not sure what you mean about Csonka not playing his entire career in the NFL. Can you enlighten me?

JasP24

In 1975, he left the Dolphins for big money to play in the short lived WFL(World Football League)...When he returned to the NFL to play for the Giants the next season, he was never the same...

Had he stayed with the Dolphins his entire career, he would have been very close to 10,000 if not over...He returned to the Dolphins for his last season in 1979 and gained 837 yards...Give him just 837 yards for each of the 4 years he didn't play with them and he's around 9,800 yards...

Jason

shagrotn77

Very interesting. I didn't know that about Csonka. Were there any WFL cards issued?

JasP24

No cards were ever produced that I know of...There were some other NFL players who played in the WFL though..Csonka wasn't the only HOFer either...Paul Warfield was the other....Here's a quick list...

Former Players of WFL
The following well known players played in both the WFL and the NFL:

John Huarte - NFL-NY Jets, Boston Patriots/WFL-Memphis Southmen
George Sauer - NFL New York Jets/WFL New York Stars
Jim Nance - NFL Boston Patriots/WFL Houston Texans, Shreveport Steamers
Gerry Philbin NFL NY Jets/WFL NY Stars
Gary Danielson - NFL Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions/WFL NY-Charlotte (1974), Chicago and Portland (1975
Daryle "Mad Bomber" Lamonica - NFL Buffalo and Oakland Raiders /WFL So.California Sun
Danny White - NFL Dallas Cowboys /WFL Memphis Southmen
Jim Fassel - NFL New York Giants (head coach)/ WFL - Honolulu
Larry Csonka - NFL Miami Dolphins /WFL-Memphis Southmen
Jim Kiick - NFL Miami Dolphins/ WFL Memphis Southmen
Paul Warfield - NFL Cleveland Browns, Miami Dolphins/ WFL Memphis Southmen
Marty Schottenheimer - NFL Buffalo Bills, Cleveland Browns/Chiefs (head coach)/WFL Portland Storm
John Gilliam - NFL Minnesota Vikings/ WFL Chicago Fire, Chicago Winds and Philadelphia Bells
Calvin Hill - NFL Dallas Cowboys / WFL Hawaiians
Johnny Walton - NFL LA Rams-Phila. Eagles / WFL San Antonio
Pat Haden - NFL LA Rams / WFL Southern California Sun

Jason