Welcome Mike. I too have been cursing your name...and now this jrullo fella... It used to be everytime I found a card I needed, Jason at least had the opening bid covered...now it's you. Jason at least let me win some things once in a while.
BTW, if anyone needs any "collector grade" HOF'ers, I've upgraded a few. Most are going to be PSA 5-6 grade. Nothing spendy or exceptionally rare. I was going to put a list together on the BST board this weekend and list them on ebay on Sunday.
Jason, I think arguing the Monk issue is pointless now. I was on the fence about him all along, seeing a dozen comparisons against every possible scenario (team play calling, roster, position, AP selections, Players of same era etc) I am now convinced that he is where he belongs as well....an eventual HOF'er. I will admit though that my respect for Clark has increased ten-fold having thought about him vs Monk and the light Monk has been shown in. Always good to have a sprited debate, I learned just by reading it.
<< <i>whats interesting is that Marino and Favre have put up huge numbers with no HOF help. This was GregM13's observation the other day. There is no talk around here for any of Favre Wr, TE's or Rb's to be in the HOF...same for Marino. Yet for Manning you have Harrison. Montana (Young)...Rice. Unitas...Berry...Mackey(?). One must surmize that all the success that Marino and Favre have had is mainly due to their talent above and beyond what they play(ed) with. >>
Or maybe those guys (Montana, Unitas, manning) were SO good, they turned very good players into great HOF players...Although some of Mackey's great plays (breaking like 9 tackles in one single play) had nothing to do with Unitas...lol
In fairness, Montana won his first Super Bowl with virtually NO supporting cast..Dwight Clark was the best offensive skill player on the first Championship team. He could turn a frog into a prince better than any other QB I've seen...Much like Johnny U, describing Montana and his specific strengths are hard..Neither was the fastest or the strongest or threw the tightest spirals or whatever..Technically, they were nothing special. But on the field, those guys just won games by any means necessary..And they did it on a VERY regular basis...
Jason
Oh and don't forget...Unitas was also his own Offensive Coordinator, calling his own plays...Gotta give bonus points for that, and I give manning those same props as he essentially does the same thing via changing plays as he reads defenses...
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Thanks everyone for the warm welcome. I'm a Ph.D. student in Mathematics and I'm at the point where I should be diving into my thesis research (finished up the course work). Instead I've been working on this set It's been a nice stress relief. Hopefully the research will get going soon.
Jason, it's interesting to note that Manning's SB win didn't move him up on your list (comparing to the one that you gave before the Super Bowl).
On the QB question, I'm thinking
1) Johnny Unitas 2) Otto Graham 3) Peyton Manning (and moving up...) 4) Dan Marino 5) Steve Young 6) Joe Montana ( it was the system!! lol ) 7) .... Dan Fouts
Ok so my list is biased and I admit it (especially in the 5th - 7th spot). I grew up in N. Cal in the 80's as a S.D. Charger fan. So I hated (i.e. was jealous) of the 49ers success hence my opinion of Montana. Objectively perhaps he was bit better than Dan Marino (those 4 Super Bowls have to count for something), although I like Marino much better.
Have you guys checked out Football Outsiders? great stuff. This is the place I would pull data from to support an argument that Peyton Manning has had the best 4 consecutive years at QB in the history of the NFL!! (ok my knowledge is limited on the old timers so (Jason) feel free to correct me here). They count stats by play results and game situation rather than just Td's and raw yards. The they calculate Value above replacement (VAR) for each player and then adjust based on the defense they are facing. For example a 8 yard pass on 3rd and 13 is almost worthless while a 6 yard pass on 3rd and 5 is good stuff. If you are playing the Ravens it's even better. The only defecit is their data only goes back to (1997?) or so. I watch these stats a lot during the season.
Another thought: I think it's the QB's that make the receiver and not (generally) the other way around. So talking about Marvin Harrison (who is no doubt awesome) making Peyton look better than he is doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There are many aspects of this relationship (you could write pages). However, is Reggie Wayne as good as Harrison? (I don't think so -- although he is good) Yet Manning can make him as good or better statistically. I know a big part of it is Harrison draws the best coverage. With an average quaterback I don't think teams would pay as big of a penalty for their focus on Harrison. Hence, Reggie Wayne wouldn't look so good. Or how about this: Imagine Marvin Harrison on the Raiders last year (not as ugly as Moss was due to attitude but not great either)? In fact, I think WR is a position that is MOST dependent on their team (and QB) to be able to show their skills. I still like receivers. And there are guys like Steve Largent or Lance Alworth that are great even with average QB's throwing to them.
Welcome. I to am a PhD student. I am busy writing my thesis as we speak....opps or I was. Cards do make a nice diverson from normal day to day stuff. No my biggest is problem is that I have a committee member who just emailed me (less than 2 hrs ago) saying he made a mistake in saying that he could attend my thesis defense on march 20th. could i reschedule for march 26,27 or 28. Only problem is that all my stuff (thesis, committee report etc.) has to be turned into the graduate college by march 23 in order to graduate this spring.
Jay
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
I do agree about Guy..Punters give punters a bad name..Because for the most part, they aren't difference makers..The fact that Ray Guy WAS should be enough to get him in the HOF..He should be in...Again, I don't think its a personal snub against Guy as it is a snub against letting a Punter in..he will be the first, if ever...
Mike, I am aware of the VAR. There is another formula used in the Pro Football Encyclopedia that rates players in a similar fashion, and it goes back to 1933. It measures adjusted yards based on a bunch of factors I'm not going to try and list as I am not a mathematician...lol..
What I did was take the top ratings from each QB season and compared them to the 5th best QB's rating of that same season. To me this measures dominance more than pure numbers as the times have changed from 1946-2006. By comparing them vs. only their peers from that season it measures all players on the same playing field and distinguishes these performances that are so far ahead of their peers..Here are the top 5, Pre-1960 QB performances and the top 10 1960-present performances along with how much better these guys rated than the 5th best player from that season:
Pre-1960--- 1953- Otto Graham 772--Lost NFL Title Game 1947- Otto Graham 742---Won AAFC Championship 1947- Sammy Baugh 674--Finished 4-8 1943- Sid Luckman 664---Won NFL Championship 1949- Otto Graham 633--Won AAFC Championship
1960-2005 (dont have 2006 ratings)-- 1984- Dan Marino 693---Lost Super Bowl 1981- Dan Fouts 665--Lost AFC Championship Game 2002- Rich Gannon 613---Lost Super Bowl 2004- Peyton Manning 597--Lost AFC Divisional Playoff 2004- Daunte Culpepper 587---Lost NFC Divisional Playoff 1963- Johnny Unitas 565--Finished 8-6, No Playoffs 1990- Warren Moon 560---Lost AFC Wildcard Game 1985- Ken O'Brien 524---Lost AFC Wild Card Game 1973- Roman Gabriel 516--Lost NFC Divisional Playoff 1975- Ken Anderson 492---Lost AFC Divisional Playoff
As you can see, having a dominant QB doesn't guarantee you anything..Based on this, in 1947 Otto Graham had the most dominant season of any QB ever...HUGE margin abouve the 5th best QB of the season AND won his league Championship. Yes, I factored in the NFL players of 1947 in the calculations..That #5 QB was Tommy Thompson of the Philadelphia Eagles who lost in the NFL Championship game that season..
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Does anyone else frequent this site? There is a wealth of NFL knowledge from thousands of football fans. Although these are not collectors, they still have great insite into all things football. I usually visit a couple times a day (yet to post)....
Paul Zimmerman of Sports Illustrated, who has been covering football for a living since the 1960's, has stated that the best punter he ever saw was Tommie Davis of the 49ers.
Sammy Baugh's stats were inflated by quick kicks....also, the ball he kicked has a lot different than today's footballs. Could you imagine what current punters could do with those old balls that were well broken-in? Over 50 yard averages easily.
I think that method is really good ad hoc way of getting the information we were looking for. The only flaw that I can think of is that its not taking into account the standard deviation or variance of the QB's. The old timers had some outstanding guys at the top, no question about it. They helped shape the game we have today and revolutionized their positions. But what was the average QB like in 1947? Were they still figuring out how to incorporate the forward pass into their offense? (in fairness the Raiders seem to have this problem even now .... ) Today in the NFL I think there is a certain required skill set to be a starting QB for any team (again excepting the Raiders recently ) just becuase the game has been developed and perfected (or if you prefer... evolved) over the last 50 years. To be be dominant today I think means a litlle more than to be dominant in the past due to the larger sample size. Perhaps part of it is just my own bias due to ignorance about football pre 1980 when I started watching.
I would like to see Football Outsiders go back and calculate QB ratings (DVAR) back as far as the NFL goes because their system seems to be on a very sound footing from a stats point of view. The problem is they would need the play by play data for every game in the league. That data if it still exists must be pretty hard to come by.
I think the Adjusted pass yards per play (bonus 'yards' for TD's and penalty 'yards' for interceptions on top of standard YPA) is a real nice measure for a QB because it takes into account all of the factors that go into QB rating (in fact I'm sure a person could describe how precisely the equivalence between the two actually is if they were so inclined). A couple of years back I did a little research into every QB rating system I could find because of Manning's 2004 season.
The point that the QB's with the best seasons stat wise don't seems to have Championship success I think is very telling. What we have seen from Manning over the last 3 season is a microcosm of this. It's not the best situation from a team point of view to have a QB with jaw dropping numbers. Teams pass a lot when they are behind (lots of yards). Even if the extra passing is really effective (high %, lots of TD's) it is a symptom of weakness for a team (don't get me wrong I love the passing game). Peyton learned this from 2004 and made a point of using the running game more in 2005 to wear down teams and dominate them rather than see who can score 40 pts first (I prefer watching the latter style of play). As a result he had his first season since his rookie year where he didn't get 4000 yards. Peyton's stats in 2005 showed a big dropoff. It's not that he couldn't score at will, it's just that it was more effective not to. The Colts 2005 team was a more dominant team than this year's SB team IMO. This year however they had the extra spark, the magic, they needed to go all the way. I thought the SD Chargers had the most dominant team for 2006 but lacked the poise (or extra intangible) to get it done. As I learn more about the game I realize there really is something to the intangibles. I guess this is what Joe Montana had eventhough I don't want to admit it
I love talking football eventhough I still have a lot to learn about it.
<< <i>The point that the QB's with the best seasons stat wise don't seems to have Championship success I think is very telling. What we have seen from Manning over the last 3 season is a microcosm of this. >>
Did you forget Manning won the Super Bowl this year???
Dave
edited to add.....
Sorry, I read the first line and had to respond right away. I didn't see the rest of the paragraph til later.......
But what was the average QB like in 1947? Were they still figuring out how to incorporate the forward pass into their offense?
I would like to see Football Outsiders go back and calculate QB ratings (DVAR) back as far as the NFL goes because their system seems to be on a very sound footing from a stats point of view. The problem is they would need the play by play data for every game in the league. That data if it still exists must be pretty hard to come by. >>
In 1947, most were terrible..The passing game was something you did out of desperation...But that fact combined with how well the guys played (Otto Graham in particular) to me speaks more to their greatness. They did something no one else was doing, at that's pass to win games.
Those play-by-plays back in the 40's do not exist on a regular basis. Much like the game film. You can find bits and pieces of some games, but you'd need ALL the data from all the games to be able to put togehter a good snapshot. Also some of the older play-by-play records Ive seen are tough to decifer. The terms and expressions were so different back then sometimes you cant tell what the guy recording it was trying to say. Needless to say alot of the stats from back then are incomplete/incorrect as well..Alot of the rushing yards were actually passing yards and vice versa. In the very, very ancient games (1930s) many times the only stat recorded was the final score..lol
Dan Fouts had some outstanding seasons. He was a HOF caliber QB no doubt. He's often not mentioned amonst the top 5-10 though because he never won the big game. Mostly, that was a product of the team and system he played on, but so were some of his big stats...You could say that about just about any QB though...lol...I think he was the #1 QB in the league for a few years in the early 80's..Pre-Marino and Pre-Montana really blowing up. He was a real gunslinger..The Bengals-Chargers Frostbite game that followed the Miami/SD overtime game had to be a tough pill for SD fans to swallow...lol...Which reminds me of a few things..
Ken Anderson is a VERY underrated QB...Had he won the Super Bowl vs. 49ers he might be in the HOF right now... Charlie Joiner was overrated..Wes Chandler was a better WR in almost every way. Brooks and Muncie were an awesome RB combo...Brooks was similar to Tiki Barber in style of play, while Muncie would just maul people..He scored 19 TDs in 1981 while the next best RB scored 13...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I still haven't forgiven the Bengals for winning that frostbite game. I was depressed for weeks (at age 8). If the Chargers had played the 49ers in a dome .... Chargers 56 49ers 45 greatest Super Bowl ever. Then in 1984 Montana loses to Dan Marino. Montana can wait to win the last two he plays in. That's how history should have been.
When my friend and I played out the Super Bowl in our front yard it was Wes Chandler who was the star receiver #89 my friend still talks about him when we talk on the phone. I've been slowly working on a Wes Chandler Player Set, I haven't got the checklist together yet to request it, but I've been picking up some of the cards. I saw a 1980 Chandler rc PSA 10 sell to wossamattau for $299 which was a bit more than I was willing to pay. I think Joiner had really good hands and was excellent but was made a HOF by Fouts and the Chargers offense.
Dan Fouts is my favorite QB all time, although Peyton Manning is moving up that list as well. Wouldn't mind getting a PSA 10 rookie at some point. I bought my PSA 9 when less than 10 were graded and no 10's existed (I also had 3 8's, a 7, a , and a few raw -- i sold them).
I agree Ken Anderson is underated. How does he compare to Ken Stabler?
I just picked up a James Brooks RC PSA 10 from 12 Gage Gun. He was good.
Chuck Muncie was awesome and I'm still looking for his 1977 RC (lost out on a PSA 8 today) for my All-Time Chargers.
Speaking of Tiki Barber is he a HOF'er? IMO he is on the bubble and gets in eventually (not first ballot). If he had played (well) one more year he was a certain lock.
But what was the average QB like in 1947? Were they still figuring out how to incorporate the forward pass into their offense?
I would like to see Football Outsiders go back and calculate QB ratings (DVAR) back as far as the NFL goes because their system seems to be on a very sound footing from a stats point of view. The problem is they would need the play by play data for every game in the league. That data if it still exists must be pretty hard to come by. >>
In 1947, most were terrible..The passing game was something you did out of desperation...But that fact combined with how well the guys played (Otto Graham in particular) to me speaks more to their greatness. They did something no one else was doing, at that's pass to win games.
Those play-by-plays back in the 40's do not exist on a regular basis. Much like the game film. You can find bits and pieces of some games, but you'd need ALL the data from all the games to be able to put togehter a good snapshot. Also some of the older play-by-play records Ive seen are tough to decifer. The terms and expressions were so different back then sometimes you cant tell what the guy recording it was trying to say. Needless to say alot of the stats from back then are incomplete/incorrect as well..Alot of the rushing yards were actually passing yards and vice versa. In the very, very ancient games (1930s) many times the only stat recorded was the final score..lol
Jason >>
And the hashmarks were not moved in like they are today which really benefited the running game since you weren't sideline limited-- same for the passing game
Obviously, you can not look at 1947 QB stats and compare them to today's quarterback ratings. The game is much different today -- the rules have changed dramatically over the years to open up the passing game. QB's used to get beat up like you would not believe back then, receivers were mauled by defensive players, etc..
I think it is too strong to say that 1947 pass attempts were primarily desperation in nature...teams were using the passing game as a major part of their game plans well before then (Packers of the 1930's ; the T Formation used by the Bears in the early 40's).
For those with NFL Network, They are televising the NFL Films "50 Greatest QB's" today at 1:30 EST..So set your Tivos...
Its a nice breakdown of all the greats as of 2003...
Also, Tuesday at 5PM EST, they are showing "NFL's Greatest Games" of the 1958 Colts/Giants Championship game. Many say this is the game that put the NFL on the map..Johnny Unitas at his best...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Also, Tuesday at 5PM EST, they are showing "NFL's Greatest Games" of the 1958 Colts/Giants Championship game. Many say this is the game that put the NFL on the map..Johnny Unitas at his best...
Jason >>
That's a great program. All of the episodes of NFL's Greatest Games are. I'm pretty sure Pat Summerall's great story about what Lombardi told him after he hit that long field goal is included here.
#1 set fight4olddc just opened his set for viewing!!!
All I can say is WOW...Unbelievable stuff...Only THREE card in the entire set with a POP HIGHER of 10+...
I know he is still looking for any and all possible upgrades and will pay top dollar for them...I would urge anyone interested to contact him directly at his listed e-mail.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
#1 set fight4olddc just opened his set for viewing!!!
All I can say is WOW...Unbelievable stuff...Only THREE card in the entire set with a POP HIGHER of 10+...
I know he is still looking for any and all possible upgrades and will pay top dollar for them...I would urge anyone interested to contact him directly at his listed e-mail.
Jason >>
Jason,
I just realized that the Charlie Sanders PSA 9 rc didn't make it into your set. I assume my old card is now in the #1 set?
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
#1 set fight4olddc just opened his set for viewing!!!
All I can say is WOW...Unbelievable stuff...Only THREE card in the entire set with a POP HIGHER of 10+...
I know he is still looking for any and all possible upgrades and will pay top dollar for them...I would urge anyone interested to contact him directly at his listed e-mail.
Jason >>
He does pay very well for stuff he wants and needs, I can vouch for that. He's also very pleasant to deal with. I'm so glad to see he opened up his sets too, just amazing to look at. I didn't think some of the cards he owns even existed. I mean, what does a PSA 9 Red Grange Sport Kings even look like? Can't wait til he gets scans posted.
<< <i>Yes, I'm interested in seeing some of these, too.
I counted 4 1/1 PSA 10's. What an achievement >>
Two of those came from my well calibrated eye..
The 1961 Jim Otto and 1974 Joe Delamielleure...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Awesome..You've been talking about that one for awhile now..My Unitas 8 was the first card I ever paid over $500 for...lol..Paid $660 back in 2002...Those were the days..lol
Keep up the good fight! Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Hi Greg, Nice pick-up. Your Unitas RC is centered and looks like it has a focused photo too. Very nice eye appeal. Awesome buy!
Did you buy a '56 Bill George SGC 92 from me at the Sun-Times show last year? I was away from my table when somebody purchased it and I thought it might have been you. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to meet you in person if that was you.
Did that card crossover to your PSA 8 RC in your set? I hope it did. I thought it was a very sharp card that had an outside at a 9 too.
<< <i>Hi Greg, Nice pick-up. Your Unitas RC is centered and looks like it has a focused photo too. Very nice eye appeal. Awesome buy!
Did you buy a '56 Bill George SGC 92 from me at the Sun-Times show last year? I was away from my table when somebody purchased it and I thought it might have been you. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to meet you in person if that was you.
Did that card crossover to your PSA 8 RC in your set? I hope it did. I thought it was a very sharp card that had an outside at a 9 too.
Regards, Rich >>
Rich...
That's too funny...it was me that bought the Bill George SGC 92...what a beautiful card and my thought was the same that it has a great shot at a PSA 9 (you're right that it's the PSA 8 in my set!!). I will eventually send in for review to see if I can get the bump. I also bought a couple of other cards...1964 Philly PSA 8's if my memory doesn't fail me. I'll be at the show tomorrow (Saturday)...will you be there again?
Regards,
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
Awesome..You've been talking about that one for awhile now..My Unitas 8 was the first card I ever paid over $500 for...lol..Paid $660 back in 2002...Those were the days..lol
Keep up the good fight! Jason >>
Jason,
$660...that's amazing. I paid $1550 which was financed partially by the PSA 9 Charlie Sanders and sale of my PSA 7 Unitas for $450 (thanks to you). I paid 50% over SMR - but it is the nicest PSA 8 Unitas that I've seen... In my opinion, except for the weak centering on the back it would have a shot at a 9.
Regards,
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
<< <i>Hi Greg, Nice pick-up. Your Unitas RC is centered and looks like it has a focused photo too. Very nice eye appeal. Awesome buy!
Did you buy a '56 Bill George SGC 92 from me at the Sun-Times show last year? I was away from my table when somebody purchased it and I thought it might have been you. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to meet you in person if that was you.
Did that card crossover to your PSA 8 RC in your set? I hope it did. I thought it was a very sharp card that had an outside at a 9 too.
Regards, Rich >>
Rich...
That's too funny...it was me that bought the Bill George SGC 92...what a beautiful card and my thought was the same that it has a great shot at a PSA 9 (you're right that it's the PSA 8 in my set!!). I will eventually send in for review to see if I can get the bump. I also bought a couple of other cards...1964 Philly PSA 8's if my memory doesn't fail me. I'll be at the show tomorrow (Saturday)...will you be there again?
Regards,
Greg M. >>
Cool, yeah I wasn't sure who bought that George RC. Glad you liked it. My buddy who was watching the table last year just said he sold that card and I think two others cards while I was away from the table but didn't tell me which cards he sold other than the George RC.
I didn't set-up this time, I just attended it and hung out at a friends table on Friday and Saturday.
I will have a booth at the June Sportsfest show however. I hope to have some decent Football with me then. My booth number is 329. Stop by and say hello if you remember this 10 weeks from now. LOL.
I finally got around to watching the "greatest game ever played" that Jason alerted us about and I Tivod from NFL network. So many HOFers in that game! Unitas was amazing of course, but Raymond Berry really impressed me. Now I see why he often shows up on Top 10 receiver lists. I'd love to get my hands on a copy of the entire game uncut.
So is that the PSA 8 that got a bump or is it the SGC 96 that crossed? I thought I had heard (a couple Nationals ago in Chicago) that the SGC Nagurski wouldn't cross and that's why it stayed in the SGC holder. Am I mistaken? Or does Jon just have some clout with that ridiculous set he's managed to put together?
Still waiting on the scans, I cannot wait to see some of these cards!
The PSA 9 was actually originally a PSA 9, was crossed to an SGC 96, and now is a PSA 9 again. I've seen a scan of the card and it is just out of this world! If you're in the market for an 8, give Jon a shout.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Jason i cant help myslf to add a little fuel to this often discussed topic but i was watching the skins super bowl run from the 82 season last night and it reminded me that Mr ART MONK was out the whole playoff and the super bowl with a stress fractor in his foot ,maybe thats why his playoff #s are down that you pointed out
<< <i>Jason i cant help myslf to add a little fuel to this often discussed topic but i was watching the skins super bowl run from the 82 season last night and it reminded me that Mr ART MONK was out the whole playoff and the super bowl with a stress fractor in his foot ,maybe thats why his playoff #s are down that you pointed out >>
That was a great Super Bowl...Cemented John Riggins as a HOFer...I don't think I ever discounted Monk's numbers..Regular season or playoffs,he was a solid, steady guy who always played well. What I have said was that his IMPACT on that team was not as big as a few others have stated when arguing that Monk is the most overlooked/undervalued player to ever have to wait for HOF induction. Every time he doesn't get in, there is outrage by those who feel he was the greatest WR ever. I have said that other WRs on the SAME TEAM (Gary Clark) had a bigger impact on the success of the Skins during that period. No Offensive linemen are in from one of the greatest run blocking lines of all-time. How many Skins defensive guys from that decade are in the HOF? How many QBs? Only Riggins and Gibbs have been elected..Darrell Green is a first ballot lock...And I would argue that Russ Grimm had just as big, if not bigger impact than Monk did for that Redskins era. All 5 of those guys are deserving, and I believe all 5 will get in at some point.
The fact that the Redskins could win with Monk and without Monk (even in his prime) honestly helps my case I think...
Again, he IS deserving, he SHOULD get in...But, so far, there have simply been other more deserving players. He's not overlooked IMO because he has gotten a fair look by being a finalist every single year. His case is debated every single year. Eventually he will stack up as one of the top 3 or 4 candidates in a class and will get in. All I ask is that the annual armageddon that comes after each season with no Monk in the Hall be tempered a bit...Because with Cris Carter and Darrell Green coming up next year, I think Monk is a long shot in 2008...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> Every time he doesn't get in, there is outrage by those who feel he was the greatest WR ever. >>
Well, spealing solely for myself, I don't think that and have never said it. I do feel he's a clear first ballot HOFer, as was Lofton. That's mainly where I'm coming from.
<< <i>Again, he IS deserving, he SHOULD get in >>
I'm just going to keep concentrating on that aspect of your opinion and leave it at that. The very last thing I want to do around here is start this up again.
One final thing, though: we're looking at this from fundamentally incompatable viewpoints.
You see his previous experiences as being several chances, repeated consideration as a finalist. Essentially a repeated honor. I see it more as a series of repeated slaps to the face of a clearly deserving player.
You've made it clear that you see the committee as being fair and right and I've made it clear (at least I hope I have), that I find their reasoning fundamentally flawed and that I feel some of them, not many but enough, are not voting on or considering his case objectively. We're never going to see eye to eye on that, which is why I feel this is fundamentally pointless to argue about.
<< <i> Every time he doesn't get in, there is outrage by those who feel he was the greatest WR ever. >>
Well, spealing solely for myself, I don't think that and have never said it. I do feel he's a clear first ballot HOFer, as was Lofton. That's mainly where I'm coming from.
<< <i>Again, he IS deserving, he SHOULD get in >>
I'm just going to keep concentrating on that aspect of your opinion and leave it at that. The very last thing I want to do around here is start this up again.
One final thing, though: we're looking at this from fundamentally incompatable viewpoints.
You see his previous experiences as being several chances, repeated consideration as a finalist. Essentially a repeated honor. I see it more as a series of repeated slaps to the face of a clearly deserving player.
You've made it clear that you see the committee as being fair and right and I've made it clear (at least I hope I have), that I find their reasoning fundamentally flawed and that I feel some of them, not many but enough, are not voting on or considering his case objectively. We're never going to see eye to eye on that, which is why I feel this is fundamentally pointless to argue about. >>
We both made our points well I think, and we both represent the 2 sides of the Art Monk story. James Lofton is an excellent example that I used in the past. I think I showed that Lofton was more dominant than Monk in almost every aspect. Yet Lofton waited 5 years and was a finalist 3 times before getting elected. So TWICE Lofton didn't even make the FINAL 15 in his 5 years of being eligible. Is that not a bigger slap in the face for a player who was at least as good if not better than Monk?
The only part of this I don't comprehend is why the common theme is that Monk is being blackballed or cheated by the voters while guys like Lofton or even Joe Gibbs (4 tries), or John Riggins (2nd try) weren't being blackballed or cheated when they missed being elected?For that to be the case, Monk would need to be Dan Marino, Reggie White, Barry Sanders level and he wasn't..Those are "first ballot locks" and Monk isn't in that class. He's just another HOF worthy guy who when compared to the other 15 finalist in that year was not one of the most deserving of that group. The conspiracy theories are simply ridiculous, the absolute truth is that Monk wasn't GREAT enough to warrant getting in first ballot. He just wasn't, sorry.
He's every bit as good as Charlie Joiner (5th year), John Stallworth (10th year), Bobby Mitchell (10th year), and Tommy McDonald (25th year). All HOFers and every one of them had to wait their turn.
First ballot HOF WRs? Raymond Berry, Lance Alworth, Paul Warfield, Steve Largent....If you think Monk is in that class, you must have ONLY been watching Redskins through the years...lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>The PSA 9 was actually originally a PSA 9, was crossed to an SGC 96, and now is a PSA 9 again. I've seen a scan of the card and it is just out of this world! If you're in the market for an 8, give Jon a shout. >>
Oh I'm in the market for a PSA 8 Nagurski alright, problem is my house would have to be on the market as well. lol. Not to mention my wife would leave me. I didn't realize the SGC 96 was originally a PSA 9, that's different than what I remember hearing. Thanks for clearing it up though. I did see it in the SGC holder at their booth during the nationals a couple years back; it was amazing. It honesly looked like a reprint it was so nice, just doesn't seem like a card 72 years old could possibly look that good still. I saw the PSA 8 he won at the Sun Times show at Mile Highs table in October. Another gorgeous card.
As for Monk, he will have a tough go next year with CC on the ballot. I don't see him getting denied.
Comments
BTW, if anyone needs any "collector grade" HOF'ers, I've upgraded a few. Most are going to be PSA 5-6 grade. Nothing spendy or exceptionally rare. I was going to put a list together on the BST board this weekend and list them on ebay on Sunday.
Jason, I think arguing the Monk issue is pointless now. I was on the fence about him all along, seeing a dozen comparisons against every possible scenario (team play calling, roster, position, AP selections, Players of same era etc) I am now convinced that he is where he belongs as well....an eventual HOF'er. I will admit though that my respect for Clark has increased ten-fold having thought about him vs Monk and the light Monk has been shown in. Always good to have a sprited debate, I learned just by reading it.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
I have an '89 Score #86 Tim Brown PSA 9 FS/FT. Nothing wrong with it. I just ended up with 2 of them.
I'm looking for FB stars/HOFers generally, not just rookie cards.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>whats interesting is that Marino and Favre have put up huge numbers with no HOF help. This was GregM13's observation the other day. There is no talk around here for any of Favre Wr, TE's or Rb's to be in the HOF...same for Marino. Yet for Manning you have Harrison. Montana (Young)...Rice. Unitas...Berry...Mackey(?). One must surmize that all the success that Marino and Favre have had is mainly due to their talent above and beyond what they play(ed) with. >>
Or maybe those guys (Montana, Unitas, manning) were SO good, they turned very good players into great HOF players...Although some of Mackey's great plays (breaking like 9 tackles in one single play) had nothing to do with Unitas...lol
In fairness, Montana won his first Super Bowl with virtually NO supporting cast..Dwight Clark was the best offensive skill player on the first Championship team. He could turn a frog into a prince better than any other QB I've seen...Much like Johnny U, describing Montana and his specific strengths are hard..Neither was the fastest or the strongest or threw the tightest spirals or whatever..Technically, they were nothing special. But on the field, those guys just won games by any means necessary..And they did it on a VERY regular basis...
Jason
Oh and don't forget...Unitas was also his own Offensive Coordinator, calling his own plays...Gotta give bonus points for that, and I give manning those same props as he essentially does the same thing via changing plays as he reads defenses...
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Jason, it's interesting to note that Manning's SB win didn't move him up on your list (comparing to the one that you gave before the Super Bowl).
On the QB question, I'm thinking
1) Johnny Unitas
2) Otto Graham
3) Peyton Manning (and moving up...)
4) Dan Marino
5) Steve Young
6) Joe Montana ( it was the system!! lol )
7) .... Dan Fouts
Ok so my list is biased and I admit it (especially in the 5th - 7th spot). I grew up in N. Cal in the 80's as a S.D. Charger fan. So I hated (i.e. was jealous) of the 49ers success hence my opinion of Montana. Objectively perhaps he was bit better than Dan Marino (those 4 Super Bowls have to count for something), although I like Marino much better.
Have you guys checked out Football Outsiders? great stuff. This is the place I would pull data from to support an argument that Peyton Manning has had the best 4 consecutive years at QB in the history of the NFL!! (ok my knowledge is limited on the old timers so (Jason) feel free to correct me here). They count stats by play results and game situation rather than just Td's and raw yards. The they calculate Value above replacement (VAR) for each player and then adjust based on the defense they are facing. For example a 8 yard pass on 3rd and 13 is almost worthless while a 6 yard pass on 3rd and 5 is good stuff. If you are playing the Ravens it's even better. The only defecit is their data only goes back to (1997?) or so. I watch these stats a lot during the season.
Another thought: I think it's the QB's that make the receiver and not (generally) the other way around. So talking about Marvin Harrison (who is no doubt awesome) making Peyton look better than he is doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There are many aspects of this relationship (you could write pages). However, is Reggie Wayne as good as Harrison? (I don't think so -- although he is good) Yet Manning can make him as good or better statistically. I know a big part of it is Harrison draws the best coverage. With an average quaterback I don't think teams would pay as big of a penalty for their focus on Harrison. Hence, Reggie Wayne wouldn't look so good. Or how about this: Imagine Marvin Harrison on the Raiders last year (not as ugly as Moss was due to attitude but not great either)? In fact, I think WR is a position that is MOST dependent on their team (and QB) to be able to show their skills. I still like receivers. And there are guys like Steve Largent or Lance Alworth that are great even with average QB's throwing to them.
my apologies for spelling (was never my thing
Welcome. I to am a PhD student. I am busy writing my thesis as we speak....opps or I was. Cards do make a nice diverson from normal day to day stuff. No my biggest is problem is that I have a committee member who just emailed me (less than 2 hrs ago) saying he made a mistake in saying that he could attend my thesis defense on march 20th. could i reschedule for march 26,27 or 28. Only problem is that all my stuff (thesis, committee report etc.) has to be turned into the graduate college by march 23 in order to graduate this spring.
Jay
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Joe
Mike, I am aware of the VAR. There is another formula used in the Pro Football Encyclopedia that rates players in a similar fashion, and it goes back to 1933. It measures adjusted yards based on a bunch of factors I'm not going to try and list as I am not a mathematician...lol..
What I did was take the top ratings from each QB season and compared them to the 5th best QB's rating of that same season. To me this measures dominance more than pure numbers as the times have changed from 1946-2006. By comparing them vs. only their peers from that season it measures all players on the same playing field and distinguishes these performances that are so far ahead of their peers..Here are the top 5, Pre-1960 QB performances and the top 10 1960-present performances along with how much better these guys rated than the 5th best player from that season:
Pre-1960---
1953- Otto Graham 772--Lost NFL Title Game
1947- Otto Graham 742---Won AAFC Championship
1947- Sammy Baugh 674--Finished 4-8
1943- Sid Luckman 664---Won NFL Championship
1949- Otto Graham 633--Won AAFC Championship
1960-2005 (dont have 2006 ratings)--
1984- Dan Marino 693---Lost Super Bowl
1981- Dan Fouts 665--Lost AFC Championship Game
2002- Rich Gannon 613---Lost Super Bowl
2004- Peyton Manning 597--Lost AFC Divisional Playoff
2004- Daunte Culpepper 587---Lost NFC Divisional Playoff
1963- Johnny Unitas 565--Finished 8-6, No Playoffs
1990- Warren Moon 560---Lost AFC Wildcard Game
1985- Ken O'Brien 524---Lost AFC Wild Card Game
1973- Roman Gabriel 516--Lost NFC Divisional Playoff
1975- Ken Anderson 492---Lost AFC Divisional Playoff
As you can see, having a dominant QB doesn't guarantee you anything..Based on this, in 1947 Otto Graham had the most dominant season of any QB ever...HUGE margin abouve the 5th best QB of the season AND won his league Championship. Yes, I factored in the NFL players of 1947 in the calculations..That #5 QB was Tommy Thompson of the Philadelphia Eagles who lost in the NFL Championship game that season..
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Footballguys.com
Alot of it is football "rumor mill" and alot of fantasy FB stats, but there are some great threads on HOF worthiness...... like this one
Click on the top forum entitled the shark pool....
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
Sammy Baugh's stats were inflated by quick kicks....also, the ball he kicked has a lot different than today's footballs. Could you imagine what current punters could do with those old balls that were well broken-in? Over 50 yard averages easily.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
It's nice to see Dan Fouts up on that list
I think that method is really good ad hoc way of getting the information we were looking for. The only flaw that I can think of is that its not taking into account the standard deviation or variance of the QB's. The old timers had some outstanding guys at the top, no question about it. They helped shape the game we have today and revolutionized their positions. But what was the average QB like in 1947? Were they still figuring out how to incorporate the forward pass into their offense? (in fairness the Raiders seem to have this problem even now ....
I would like to see Football Outsiders go back and calculate QB ratings (DVAR) back as far as the NFL goes because their system seems to be on a very sound footing from a stats point of view. The problem is they would need the play by play data for every game in the league. That data if it still exists must be pretty hard to come by.
I think the Adjusted pass yards per play (bonus 'yards' for TD's and penalty 'yards' for interceptions on top of standard YPA) is a real nice measure for a QB because it takes into account all of the factors that go into QB rating (in fact I'm sure a person could describe how precisely the equivalence between the two actually is if they were so inclined). A couple of years back I did a little research into every QB rating system I could find because of Manning's 2004 season.
The point that the QB's with the best seasons stat wise don't seems to have Championship success I think is very telling. What we have seen from Manning over the last 3 season is a microcosm of this. It's not the best situation from a team point of view to have a QB with jaw dropping numbers. Teams pass a lot when they are behind (lots of yards). Even if the extra passing is really effective (high %, lots of TD's) it is a symptom of weakness for a team (don't get me wrong I love the passing game). Peyton learned this from 2004 and made a point of using the running game more in 2005 to wear down teams and dominate them rather than see who can score 40 pts first (I prefer watching the latter style of play). As a result he had his first season since his rookie year where he didn't get 4000 yards. Peyton's stats in 2005 showed a big dropoff. It's not that he couldn't score at will, it's just that it was more effective not to. The Colts 2005 team was a more dominant team than this year's SB team IMO. This year however they had the extra spark, the magic, they needed to go all the way. I thought the SD Chargers had the most dominant team for 2006 but lacked the poise (or extra intangible) to get it done. As I learn more about the game I realize there really is something to the intangibles. I guess this is what Joe Montana had eventhough I don't want to admit it
I love talking football eventhough I still have a lot to learn about it.
Mike
<< <i>The point that the QB's with the best seasons stat wise don't seems to have Championship success I think is very telling. What we have seen from Manning over the last 3 season is a microcosm of this. >>
Dave
edited to add.....
Sorry, I read the first line and had to respond right away. I didn't see the rest of the paragraph til later.......
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>
But what was the average QB like in 1947? Were they still figuring out how to incorporate the forward pass into their offense?
I would like to see Football Outsiders go back and calculate QB ratings (DVAR) back as far as the NFL goes because their system seems to be on a very sound footing from a stats point of view. The problem is they would need the play by play data for every game in the league. That data if it still exists must be pretty hard to come by.
>>
In 1947, most were terrible..The passing game was something you did out of desperation...But that fact combined with how well the guys played (Otto Graham in particular) to me speaks more to their greatness. They did something no one else was doing, at that's pass to win games.
Those play-by-plays back in the 40's do not exist on a regular basis. Much like the game film. You can find bits and pieces of some games, but you'd need ALL the data from all the games to be able to put togehter a good snapshot. Also some of the older play-by-play records Ive seen are tough to decifer. The terms and expressions were so different back then sometimes you cant tell what the guy recording it was trying to say. Needless to say alot of the stats from back then are incomplete/incorrect as well..Alot of the rushing yards were actually passing yards and vice versa. In the very, very ancient games (1930s) many times the only stat recorded was the final score..lol
Dan Fouts had some outstanding seasons. He was a HOF caliber QB no doubt. He's often not mentioned amonst the top 5-10 though because he never won the big game. Mostly, that was a product of the team and system he played on, but so were some of his big stats...You could say that about just about any QB though...lol...I think he was the #1 QB in the league for a few years in the early 80's..Pre-Marino and Pre-Montana really blowing up. He was a real gunslinger..The Bengals-Chargers Frostbite game that followed the Miami/SD overtime game had to be a tough pill for SD fans to swallow...lol...Which reminds me of a few things..
Ken Anderson is a VERY underrated QB...Had he won the Super Bowl vs. 49ers he might be in the HOF right now...
Charlie Joiner was overrated..Wes Chandler was a better WR in almost every way.
Brooks and Muncie were an awesome RB combo...Brooks was similar to Tiki Barber in style of play, while Muncie would just maul people..He scored 19 TDs in 1981 while the next best RB scored 13...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>The Bengals-Chargers Frostbite game that followed the Miami/SD overtime game had to be a tough pill for SD fans to swallow >>
It was. Two of my friends at the time incessantly carped about it for years afterwards.
<< <i>Ken Anderson is a VERY underrated QB
Charlie Joiner was overrated
Brooks and Muncie were an awesome RB combo >>
In order...yes, no, and yes
And Wes Chandler was definitely great. People who didn't see it forget just how good and how much fun that team was to watch.
I still haven't forgiven the Bengals for winning that frostbite game. I was depressed for weeks (at age 8). If the Chargers had played the 49ers in a dome .... Chargers 56 49ers 45 greatest Super Bowl ever. Then in 1984 Montana loses to Dan Marino. Montana can wait to win the last two he plays in. That's how history should have been.
When my friend and I played out the Super Bowl in our front yard it was Wes Chandler who was the star receiver #89 my friend still talks about him when we talk on the phone. I've been slowly working on a Wes Chandler Player Set, I haven't got the checklist together yet to request it, but I've been picking up some of the cards. I saw a 1980 Chandler rc PSA 10 sell to wossamattau for $299 which was a bit more than I was willing to pay. I think Joiner had really good hands and was excellent but was made a HOF by Fouts and the Chargers offense.
Dan Fouts is my favorite QB all time, although Peyton Manning is moving up that list as well. Wouldn't mind getting a PSA 10 rookie at some point. I bought my PSA 9 when less than 10 were graded and no 10's existed (I also had 3 8's, a 7, a , and a few raw -- i sold them).
I agree Ken Anderson is underated. How does he compare to Ken Stabler?
I just picked up a James Brooks RC PSA 10 from 12 Gage Gun. He was good.
Chuck Muncie was awesome and I'm still looking for his 1977 RC (lost out on a PSA 8 today) for my All-Time Chargers.
Speaking of Tiki Barber is he a HOF'er? IMO he is on the bubble and gets in eventually (not first ballot). If he had played (well) one more year he was a certain lock.
<< <i>
<< <i>
But what was the average QB like in 1947? Were they still figuring out how to incorporate the forward pass into their offense?
I would like to see Football Outsiders go back and calculate QB ratings (DVAR) back as far as the NFL goes because their system seems to be on a very sound footing from a stats point of view. The problem is they would need the play by play data for every game in the league. That data if it still exists must be pretty hard to come by.
>>
In 1947, most were terrible..The passing game was something you did out of desperation...But that fact combined with how well the guys played (Otto Graham in particular) to me speaks more to their greatness. They did something no one else was doing, at that's pass to win games.
Those play-by-plays back in the 40's do not exist on a regular basis. Much like the game film. You can find bits and pieces of some games, but you'd need ALL the data from all the games to be able to put togehter a good snapshot. Also some of the older play-by-play records Ive seen are tough to decifer. The terms and expressions were so different back then sometimes you cant tell what the guy recording it was trying to say. Needless to say alot of the stats from back then are incomplete/incorrect as well..Alot of the rushing yards were actually passing yards and vice versa. In the very, very ancient games (1930s) many times the only stat recorded was the final score..lol
Jason >>
And the hashmarks were not moved in like they are today which really benefited the running game since you weren't sideline limited-- same for the passing game
My Sports Cards/Magazines
Cards/Mags
I think it is too strong to say that 1947 pass attempts were primarily desperation in nature...teams were using the passing game as a major part of their game plans well before then (Packers of the 1930's ; the T Formation used by the Bears in the early 40's).
Its a nice breakdown of all the greats as of 2003...
Also, Tuesday at 5PM EST, they are showing "NFL's Greatest Games" of the 1958 Colts/Giants Championship game. Many say this is the game that put the NFL on the map..Johnny Unitas at his best...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Also, Tuesday at 5PM EST, they are showing "NFL's Greatest Games" of the 1958 Colts/Giants Championship game. Many say this is the game that put the NFL on the map..Johnny Unitas at his best...
Jason >>
That's a great program. All of the episodes of NFL's Greatest Games are. I'm pretty sure Pat Summerall's great story about what Lombardi told him after he hit that long field goal is included here.
#1 set fight4olddc just opened his set for viewing!!!
All I can say is WOW...Unbelievable stuff...Only THREE card in the entire set with a POP HIGHER of 10+...
I know he is still looking for any and all possible upgrades and will pay top dollar for them...I would urge anyone interested to contact him directly at his listed e-mail.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>FYI...
#1 set fight4olddc just opened his set for viewing!!!
All I can say is WOW...Unbelievable stuff...Only THREE card in the entire set with a POP HIGHER of 10+...
I know he is still looking for any and all possible upgrades and will pay top dollar for them...I would urge anyone interested to contact him directly at his listed e-mail.
Jason >>
Jason,
I just realized that the Charlie Sanders PSA 9 rc didn't make it into your set. I assume my old card is now in the #1 set?
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
Regards,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>FYI...
#1 set fight4olddc just opened his set for viewing!!!
All I can say is WOW...Unbelievable stuff...Only THREE card in the entire set with a POP HIGHER of 10+...
I know he is still looking for any and all possible upgrades and will pay top dollar for them...I would urge anyone interested to contact him directly at his listed e-mail.
Jason >>
He does pay very well for stuff he wants and needs, I can vouch for that. He's also very pleasant to deal with. I'm so glad to see he opened up his sets too, just amazing to look at. I didn't think some of the cards he owns even existed. I mean, what does a PSA 9 Red Grange Sport Kings even look like? Can't wait til he gets scans posted.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
I counted 4 1/1 PSA 10's. What an achievement
<< <i>Yes, I'm interested in seeing some of these, too.
I counted 4 1/1 PSA 10's. What an achievement
Two of those came from my well calibrated eye..
The 1961 Jim Otto and 1974 Joe Delamielleure...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Greg M.
Link to my HOF rc set
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>I just picked up one of my "dream" cards. I never thought I'd own a PSA 8 Unitas rc.... Check it out.
Greg M.
Link to my HOF rc set >>
Awesome..You've been talking about that one for awhile now..My Unitas 8 was the first card I ever paid over $500 for...lol..Paid $660 back in 2002...Those were the days..lol
Keep up the good fight!
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I just picked up one of my "dream" cards. I never thought I'd own a PSA 8 Unitas rc.... Check it out.
Greg M.
Link to my HOF rc set >>
Nice job Greg. It feels great getting one of your dream cards.
Gabbs
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Nice pick-up. Your Unitas RC is centered and looks like it has a focused photo too. Very nice eye appeal. Awesome buy!
Did you buy a '56 Bill George SGC 92 from me at the Sun-Times show last year? I was away from my table when somebody purchased it and I thought it might have been you. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to meet you in person if that was you.
Did that card crossover to your PSA 8 RC in your set? I hope it did. I thought it was a very sharp card that had an outside at a 9 too.
Regards,
Rich
<< <i>Nice pick-up. Your Unitas RC is centered and looks like it has a focused photo too. Very nice eye appeal. >>
Indeed. It's a wonderful card, in all particulars.
<< <i>Hi Greg,
Nice pick-up. Your Unitas RC is centered and looks like it has a focused photo too. Very nice eye appeal. Awesome buy!
Did you buy a '56 Bill George SGC 92 from me at the Sun-Times show last year? I was away from my table when somebody purchased it and I thought it might have been you. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to meet you in person if that was you.
Did that card crossover to your PSA 8 RC in your set? I hope it did. I thought it was a very sharp card that had an outside at a 9 too.
Regards,
Rich >>
Rich...
That's too funny...it was me that bought the Bill George SGC 92...what a beautiful card and my thought was the same that it has a great shot at a PSA 9 (you're right that it's the PSA 8 in my set!!). I will eventually send in for review to see if I can get the bump. I also bought a couple of other cards...1964 Philly PSA 8's if my memory doesn't fail me. I'll be at the show tomorrow (Saturday)...will you be there again?
Regards,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>
<< <i>I just picked up one of my "dream" cards. I never thought I'd own a PSA 8 Unitas rc.... Check it out.
Greg M.
Link to my HOF rc set >>
Awesome..You've been talking about that one for awhile now..My Unitas 8 was the first card I ever paid over $500 for...lol..Paid $660 back in 2002...Those were the days..lol
Keep up the good fight!
Jason >>
Jason,
$660...that's amazing. I paid $1550 which was financed partially by the PSA 9 Charlie Sanders and sale of my PSA 7 Unitas for $450 (thanks to you). I paid 50% over SMR - but it is the nicest PSA 8 Unitas that I've seen... In my opinion, except for the weak centering on the back it would have a shot at a 9.
Regards,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>
<< <i>Hi Greg,
Nice pick-up. Your Unitas RC is centered and looks like it has a focused photo too. Very nice eye appeal. Awesome buy!
Did you buy a '56 Bill George SGC 92 from me at the Sun-Times show last year? I was away from my table when somebody purchased it and I thought it might have been you. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to meet you in person if that was you.
Did that card crossover to your PSA 8 RC in your set? I hope it did. I thought it was a very sharp card that had an outside at a 9 too.
Regards,
Rich >>
Rich...
That's too funny...it was me that bought the Bill George SGC 92...what a beautiful card and my thought was the same that it has a great shot at a PSA 9 (you're right that it's the PSA 8 in my set!!). I will eventually send in for review to see if I can get the bump. I also bought a couple of other cards...1964 Philly PSA 8's if my memory doesn't fail me. I'll be at the show tomorrow (Saturday)...will you be there again?
Regards,
Greg M. >>
Cool, yeah I wasn't sure who bought that George RC. Glad you liked it. My buddy who was watching the table last year just said he sold that card and I think two others cards while I was away from the table but didn't tell me which cards he sold other than the George RC.
I didn't set-up this time, I just attended it and hung out at a friends table on Friday and Saturday.
I will have a booth at the June Sportsfest show however. I hope to have some decent Football with me then. My booth number is 329. Stop by and say hello if you remember this 10 weeks from now. LOL.
Rich
Dave
It's not listed in the pop report but it may not be updated yet..
I can't think of any other reason that it's deleted....
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
I am happy to announce that I own the crown jewel of the hobby equivalent to the Gretzky Honus Wagner - the 1 of 1 PSA 9 Bronko Nagurski
Chad
Joe
Fight4oldDC
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Still waiting on the scans, I cannot wait to see some of these cards!
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
<< <i>Jason i cant help myslf to add a little fuel to this often discussed topic but i was watching the skins super bowl run from the 82 season last night and it reminded me that Mr ART MONK was out the whole playoff and the super bowl with a stress fractor in his foot ,maybe thats why his playoff #s are down that you pointed out
That was a great Super Bowl...Cemented John Riggins as a HOFer...I don't think I ever discounted Monk's numbers..Regular season or playoffs,he was a solid, steady guy who always played well. What I have said was that his IMPACT on that team was not as big as a few others have stated when arguing that Monk is the most overlooked/undervalued player to ever have to wait for HOF induction. Every time he doesn't get in, there is outrage by those who feel he was the greatest WR ever. I have said that other WRs on the SAME TEAM (Gary Clark) had a bigger impact on the success of the Skins during that period. No Offensive linemen are in from one of the greatest run blocking lines of all-time. How many Skins defensive guys from that decade are in the HOF? How many QBs? Only Riggins and Gibbs have been elected..Darrell Green is a first ballot lock...And I would argue that Russ Grimm had just as big, if not bigger impact than Monk did for that Redskins era. All 5 of those guys are deserving, and I believe all 5 will get in at some point.
The fact that the Redskins could win with Monk and without Monk (even in his prime) honestly helps my case I think...
Again, he IS deserving, he SHOULD get in...But, so far, there have simply been other more deserving players. He's not overlooked IMO because he has gotten a fair look by being a finalist every single year. His case is debated every single year. Eventually he will stack up as one of the top 3 or 4 candidates in a class and will get in. All I ask is that the annual armageddon that comes after each season with no Monk in the Hall be tempered a bit...Because with Cris Carter and Darrell Green coming up next year, I think Monk is a long shot in 2008...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> Every time he doesn't get in, there is outrage by those who feel he was the greatest WR ever. >>
Well, spealing solely for myself, I don't think that and have never said it. I do feel he's a clear first ballot HOFer, as was Lofton. That's mainly where I'm coming from.
<< <i>Again, he IS deserving, he SHOULD get in >>
I'm just going to keep concentrating on that aspect of your opinion and leave it at that. The very last thing I want to do around here is start this up again.
One final thing, though: we're looking at this from fundamentally incompatable viewpoints.
You see his previous experiences as being several chances, repeated consideration as a finalist. Essentially a repeated honor. I see it more as a series of repeated slaps to the face of a clearly deserving player.
You've made it clear that you see the committee as being fair and right and I've made it clear (at least I hope I have), that I find their reasoning fundamentally flawed and that I feel some of them, not many but enough, are not voting on or considering his case objectively. We're never going to see eye to eye on that, which is why I feel this is fundamentally pointless to argue about.
<< <i>
<< <i> Every time he doesn't get in, there is outrage by those who feel he was the greatest WR ever. >>
Well, spealing solely for myself, I don't think that and have never said it. I do feel he's a clear first ballot HOFer, as was Lofton. That's mainly where I'm coming from.
<< <i>Again, he IS deserving, he SHOULD get in >>
I'm just going to keep concentrating on that aspect of your opinion and leave it at that. The very last thing I want to do around here is start this up again.
One final thing, though: we're looking at this from fundamentally incompatable viewpoints.
You see his previous experiences as being several chances, repeated consideration as a finalist. Essentially a repeated honor. I see it more as a series of repeated slaps to the face of a clearly deserving player.
You've made it clear that you see the committee as being fair and right and I've made it clear (at least I hope I have), that I find their reasoning fundamentally flawed and that I feel some of them, not many but enough, are not voting on or considering his case objectively. We're never going to see eye to eye on that, which is why I feel this is fundamentally pointless to argue about. >>
We both made our points well I think, and we both represent the 2 sides of the Art Monk story. James Lofton is an excellent example that I used in the past. I think I showed that Lofton was more dominant than Monk in almost every aspect. Yet Lofton waited 5 years and was a finalist 3 times before getting elected. So TWICE Lofton didn't even make the FINAL 15 in his 5 years of being eligible. Is that not a bigger slap in the face for a player who was at least as good if not better than Monk?
The only part of this I don't comprehend is why the common theme is that Monk is being blackballed or cheated by the voters while guys like Lofton or even Joe Gibbs (4 tries), or John Riggins (2nd try) weren't being blackballed or cheated when they missed being elected?For that to be the case, Monk would need to be Dan Marino, Reggie White, Barry Sanders level and he wasn't..Those are "first ballot locks" and Monk isn't in that class. He's just another HOF worthy guy who when compared to the other 15 finalist in that year was not one of the most deserving of that group. The conspiracy theories are simply ridiculous, the absolute truth is that Monk wasn't GREAT enough to warrant getting in first ballot. He just wasn't, sorry.
He's every bit as good as Charlie Joiner (5th year), John Stallworth (10th year), Bobby Mitchell (10th year), and Tommy McDonald (25th year). All HOFers and every one of them had to wait their turn.
First ballot HOF WRs? Raymond Berry, Lance Alworth, Paul Warfield, Steve Largent....If you think Monk is in that class, you must have ONLY been watching Redskins through the years...lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>The PSA 9 was actually originally a PSA 9, was crossed to an SGC 96, and now is a PSA 9 again. I've seen a scan of the card and it is just out of this world! If you're in the market for an 8, give Jon a shout. >>
Oh I'm in the market for a PSA 8 Nagurski alright, problem is my house would have to be on the market as well. lol. Not to mention my wife would leave me.
As for Monk, he will have a tough go next year with CC on the ballot. I don't see him getting denied.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!