Im going to go with Unitas, he seems to be the person that comes up alot in those circles and discussions. I was watching a video a few years ago where they were interviewing HOF'ers and asked each of them who they would start a team around, the #1 answer was Johnny U. What was the #2 answer you say, Steve Fu#@ing Largent of course....
Your man crush on Largent is bordering on the obsessive. I visualize you adding names to your "People to Kill" list ala the Danny McGrath character Steve Buscemi played in Billy Madison any time someone posts a negative comment about former Senator Largent...
And, yes, I can see you wearing the lipstick, too!!!
Your man crush on Largent is bordering on the obsessive. I visualize you adding names to your "People to Kill" list ala the Danny McGrath character Steve Buscemi played in Billy Madison any time someone posts a negative comment about former Senator Largent...
[MG] >>
Lets get a few things straight here Scott!
1. Largent was a Representative, not a Senator. Not that I would expect YOU to know the difference of the branches of government, you are from Jersey after all.... 2. I think you stole that coolio scan of "People to Kill" from a post I made on Cardboard! Get your own funny jokes tough guy! Quit riding my coat tails 3. You just made said list of people to kill mandingo! (Although I may be bribed in Balty with some buffalo wings.... call me big boy) 4. Unwritten rule, dont mess with a guys man crush dude. I dont make fun of your sports hero's
<< <i>1. Largent was a Representative, not a Senator. Not that I would expect YOU to know the difference of the branches of government, you are from Jersey after all.... 2. I think you stole that coolio scan of "People to Kill" from a post I made on Cardboard! Get your own funny jokes tough guy! Quit riding my coat tails >>
My apologies to former Representative Largent. I realize that had he been a Senator, he'd have been in some sort of scandal as that's what most of this country's Senators seem to do instead of legislating.
I neither saw your post, nor did I copy you. I prefer to stay away from your coattails as the stench of the exhaust isn't very pleasant.
Instead of the wings, how about a pulled pork sandwich and a cold brew at Boog's during the ballgame Thursday night? Afterward, you're on your own when you go out looking for a:
Just a thought about All-Time Team sets: I can think of one guy who essentially played no more than 5 years for each of 2 different teams, yet belongs on each of their All-Time Teams: Kurt Warner.
<< <i>Just a thought about All-Time Team sets: I can think of one guy who essentially played no more than 5 years for each of 2 different teams, yet belongs on each of their All-Time Teams: Kurt Warner.
Nick >>
Warner played 6 seasons for the Rams, 3 Pro Bowls, 2-time first Team All-Pro, and a Super Bowl MVP award. I could buy him as an All-Time Ram....But For the Cards? 5 years, 1 Pro Bowl and a Super Bowl loss? Nope, sorry. Look at the history of the Cardinals and tell me how Warner is one of the top 24 players to ever done a Cardinals jersey...With such a short Cardinals career, and a losing record as a Cardinals QB, are you telling me the one Super Bowl appearance alone qualifies him as an all-time great? I just don't understand this line of thinking.
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>Just a thought about All-Time Team sets: I can think of one guy who essentially played no more than 5 years for each of 2 different teams, yet belongs on each of their All-Time Teams: Kurt Warner.
Nick >>
Warner played 6 seasons for the Rams, 3 Pro Bowls, 2-time first Team All-Pro, and a Super Bowl MVP award. I could buy him as an All-Time Ram....But For the Cards? 5 years, 1 Pro Bowl and a Super Bowl loss? Nope, sorry. Look at the history of the Cardinals and tell me how Warner is one of the top 24 players to ever done a Cardinals jersey...With such a short Cardinals career, and a losing record as a Cardinals QB, are you telling me the one Super Bowl appearance alone qualifies him as an all-time great? I just don't understand this line of thinking.
Jason >>
I couldnt agree more with Jason. Just not enough time or accomplishments with the Cards. Not long with the Rams but many more accomplishments. We could almost add Em Tunnell to the Packers set. Played 3 years with the Packers, 1 Probowl and 1 NFL Championship. Almost a two but they lost in 1960, lost to the Eagle 13-17. Here's how close he was to two.
The Eagles won despite being outgained 401-296, with only 13 first downs to the Packers' 22. Chuck Bednarik tackled Jim Taylor on the final play of the game at the Eagles' eight yard line (Bednarik was the last Eagle between Taylor and the end zone), and remained atop Taylor for several seconds as the final seconds ticked off the clock, ensuring the Packers could not run another play. It would prove to be Packers' coach Vince Lombardi's sole career playoff loss as a coach, and is the Eagles' most recent championship.
After the game Lombardi, swore he would never lose another championship game.
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
1 of Warner's 6 seasons with the Rams consisted of 11 passes in 1 game as a backup. That might as well be ignored. And another of his seasons was radically cut short by injury.
As for his tenure with the Cardinals, he led the team to 4 playoff wins and their only Super Bowl appearance. Since the NFL adopted a playoff system, the Cardinals had only 2 other playoff wins in team history.
Warner holds a number of single-game and single-season records for the team.
The Cardinals history is not replete with stars. Their Ring of Honor includes only 13 men, with an owner, a coach, and someone inducted because he became an American hero by giving up football among them. There have been only 12 NFL HOFers who have played more than 1 game for the Cardinals. Only 102 men have ever made the Pro Bowl as a Cardinal, with more than half of those only making it once.
Warner had a losing record with the Cardinals. So did Neil Lomax and Jim Hart. The last starting QB to have a winning record with them was Charley Johnson, in the 1960s.
Given the outsize impact QBs have on a team's success compared to other players, I would place Warner among the 24 greatest Cardinals players of all time.
Thanks for posting that, I look forward to the show this fall.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
Warner had a losing record with the Cardinals. So did Neil Lomax and Jim Hart. The last starting QB to have a winning record with them was Charley Johnson, in the 1960s.
Nick >>
Jim Hart-180 games started as Cardinals QB....18 seasons with the team....34,000+ yards as a Cardinal.... Neil Lomax-101 games started as Cardinals QB....8 seasons with the team....22,000+ yards as a Cardinal.... Kurt Warner-57 games started as Cardinals QB....5 seasons with the team....15,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Lomax (IMO) is a questionable choice to begin with, and Warner can't even match those stats....So what he took a team to a Super Bowl loss...If he's worthy, then you guys need to add these QB's to these respective team sets (thank goodness I got out of the Key Card Sets...Some of these opinions on certain players just boggle my mind...lol)
Craig Morton-Cowboys AND Broncos Billy Kilmer- Redskins Doug Williams- Redskins Mark Rypien- Redskins Stan Humphries- Chargers Neil O'Donnell-Steelers Eli Manning- Giants Chris Chandler-Falcons
All match or exceed Warner's production in Arizona based on your standards. I mean, there are worse (more questionable) players on other sets, so hey request it and let the Cardinals collectors decide.
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>Just a thought about All-Time Team sets: I can think of one guy who essentially played no more than 5 years for each of 2 different teams, yet belongs on each of their All-Time Teams: Kurt Warner.
Nick >>
Warner played 6 seasons for the Rams, 3 Pro Bowls, 2-time first Team All-Pro, and a Super Bowl MVP award. I could buy him as an All-Time Ram....But For the Cards? 5 years, 1 Pro Bowl and a Super Bowl loss? Nope, sorry. Look at the history of the Cardinals and tell me how Warner is one of the top 24 players to ever done a Cardinals jersey...With such a short Cardinals career, and a losing record as a Cardinals QB, are you telling me the one Super Bowl appearance alone qualifies him as an all-time great? I just don't understand this line of thinking.
Jason >>
I will admit first of all that I am a Cardinal fan so I may be bias. I feel Kurt would be a welcomed addition to the All-Time Cardinal set. There is no denying he had a short career with the Cardinals and yes he had a losing record as a starter. But if you dig into that stat a little bit you will find that only 5 Cardinals QB's have winning records and yes that is all-time they are as follows;
Charley Johnson from 1961-1969 went 36-28-5 Jay Schroeder in his only year in 1994 went 5-3 Frank Tripueka in his only year in 1950 went 3-2 Ralph Guglielmi in his only year in 1961 went 3-2 George Izo in his only year in 1960 went 1-0
So as you can see the Franchise as a whole doesnt do a whole lot of winning. Given also the fact that the two Qb's in the set already have losing records. Neil Lomax playoff record with the Cardinals 0-1 but based on statistics is worthly of the all-time cardinal set after playing with them for 8 years Jim Hart owns most of the Cardinals passing records, in my opinion out attrition more than anything, playoff record with Cardinals 0-2 after a 16 year career Kurt Warner’s playoff record with Cardinals 4-2, with the only Super Bowl appearance in a 5 year career.
So he may not make it in on statistics but he as a quarterback meant more to that franchise then Neil Lomax or Jim Hart.
Just My Opinion
Rob
Looking for: Heisman Rookies Heisman Collection set singles Eddie George PSA rookies
I will admit first of all that I am a Cardinal fan so I may be bias. I feel Kurt would be a welcomed addition to the All-Time Cardinal set. There is no denying he had a short career with the Cardinals and yes he had a losing record as a starter. But if you dig into that stat a little bit you will find that only 5 Cardinals QB's have winning records and yes that is all-time they are as follows;
Charley Johnson from 1961-1969 went 36-28-5 Jay Schroeder in his only year in 1994 went 5-3 Frank Tripueka in his only year in 1950 went 3-2 Ralph Guglielmi in his only year in 1961 went 3-2 George Izo in his only year in 1960 went 1-0
So as you can see the Franchise as a whole doesnt do a whole lot of winning. Given also the fact that the two Qb's in the set already have losing records. Neil Lomax playoff record with the Cardinals 0-1 but based on statistics is worthly of the all-time cardinal set after playing with them for 8 years Jim Hart owns most of the Cardinals passing records, in my opinion out attrition more than anything, playoff record with Cardinals 0-2 after a 16 year career Kurt Warner�s playoff record with Cardinals 4-2, with the only Super Bowl appearance in a 5 year career.
So he may not make it in on statistics but he as a quarterback meant more to that franchise then Neil Lomax or Jim Hart.
Just My Opinion
Rob >>
If playoff wins trump: Seasons spent/games started with team, career statistics with team
Then yes add Kurt Warner to the Cardinals....Along with about 150 other players to multiple All-Time Team Sets...I listed 8 QB's ALONE in my last post, who at a minimum, match Kurt Warner's Cardinals career with those prospective teams. Some of them even WON the Super Bowl and/or were Super Bowl MVPs for that franchise. So hey, open the flood gates even further then they already had been. Just make the All-Time sets a roster of every player who ever donned that teams uniform. 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 will admit first of all that I am a Cardinal fan so I may be bias. I feel Kurt would be a welcomed addition to the All-Time Cardinal set. There is no denying he had a short career with the Cardinals and yes he had a losing record as a starter. But if you dig into that stat a little bit you will find that only 5 Cardinals QB's have winning records and yes that is all-time they are as follows;
Charley Johnson from 1961-1969 went 36-28-5 Jay Schroeder in his only year in 1994 went 5-3 Frank Tripueka in his only year in 1950 went 3-2 Ralph Guglielmi in his only year in 1961 went 3-2 George Izo in his only year in 1960 went 1-0
So as you can see the Franchise as a whole doesnt do a whole lot of winning. Given also the fact that the two Qb's in the set already have losing records. Neil Lomax playoff record with the Cardinals 0-1 but based on statistics is worthly of the all-time cardinal set after playing with them for 8 years Jim Hart owns most of the Cardinals passing records, in my opinion out attrition more than anything, playoff record with Cardinals 0-2 after a 16 year career Kurt Warner�s playoff record with Cardinals 4-2, with the only Super Bowl appearance in a 5 year career.
So he may not make it in on statistics but he as a quarterback meant more to that franchise then Neil Lomax or Jim Hart.
Just My Opinion
Rob >>
If playoff wins trump: Seasons spent/games started with team, career statistics with team
Then yes add Kurt Warner to the Cardinals....Along with about 150 other players to multiple All-Time Team Sets...I listed 8 QB's ALONE in my last post, who at a minimum, match Kurt Warner's Cardinals career with those prospective teams. Some of them even WON the Super Bowl and/or were Super Bowl MVPs for that franchise. So hey, open the flood gates even further then they already had been. Just make the All-Time sets a roster of every player who ever donned that teams uniform. lol
Jason >>
well we have been over this before. but request him if you wish. some of us feel that many of these sets are becoming watered down or should not even exist yet. hence the comment from jason about adding everyone that has ever played for a team.
i like how restrictive the All Time Packers set is. there a maybe two players that dont belong in the set (and those are border line..Max McGee and Fuzzy Thurston). sharpe and green may not make the hof but they set career marks and at their high points of their careers were quite dominant. just look at the latest nfl.com video on HOF snubbs...as dukes says if it wasnt for the neck injury and that sharpe didnt like the media (which dukes stressed even more) he would probably be in the HOF already.
i am sure one could make the argument about lynn dickey belonging in the set as well. but he hasnt even come up for a vote.
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>Just a thought about All-Time Team sets: I can think of one guy who essentially played no more than 5 years for each of 2 different teams, yet belongs on each of their All-Time Teams: Kurt Warner.
Nick >>
Warner played 6 seasons for the Rams, 3 Pro Bowls, 2-time first Team All-Pro, and a Super Bowl MVP award. I could buy him as an All-Time Ram....But For the Cards? 5 years, 1 Pro Bowl and a Super Bowl loss? Nope, sorry. Look at the history of the Cardinals and tell me how Warner is one of the top 24 players to ever done a Cardinals jersey...With such a short Cardinals career, and a losing record as a Cardinals QB, are you telling me the one Super Bowl appearance alone qualifies him as an all-time great? I just don't understand this line of thinking.
Jason >>
I will admit first of all that I am a Cardinal fan so I may be bias. I feel Kurt would be a welcomed addition to the All-Time Cardinal set. There is no denying he had a short career with the Cardinals and yes he had a losing record as a starter. But if you dig into that stat a little bit you will find that only 5 Cardinals QB's have winning records and yes that is all-time they are as follows;
Charley Johnson from 1961-1969 went 36-28-5 Jay Schroeder in his only year in 1994 went 5-3 Frank Tripueka in his only year in 1950 went 3-2 Ralph Guglielmi in his only year in 1961 went 3-2 George Izo in his only year in 1960 went 1-0
So as you can see the Franchise as a whole doesnt do a whole lot of winning. Given also the fact that the two Qb's in the set already have losing records. Neil Lomax playoff record with the Cardinals 0-1 but based on statistics is worthly of the all-time cardinal set after playing with them for 8 years Jim Hart owns most of the Cardinals passing records, in my opinion out attrition more than anything, playoff record with Cardinals 0-2 after a 16 year career Kurt Warner’s playoff record with Cardinals 4-2, with the only Super Bowl appearance in a 5 year career.
So he may not make it in on statistics but he as a quarterback meant more to that franchise then Neil Lomax or Jim Hart.
Just My Opinion
Rob >>
I'm only doing one of the All Time Team Sets but I've always felt the fans that actually follow their chosen teams should have the loudest voice b/c they usually know their team the best.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
I'm only doing one of the All Time Team Sets but I've always felt the fans that actually follow their chosen teams should have the loudest voice b/c they usually know their team the best. >>
Actually I believe the opposite. FANS of a team typically can't get rid of the rose colored glasses. This also affects the common fan and the stats based fan who have only seen or remember CURRENT players and tend to rank them higher and think they are better than the old timers, simply based on lack of information.
An OBJECTIVE viewpoint is really the only way to get a true snapshot. Especially in today's world, I can watch and/or follow any team/player in the league as if they were playing right down the street.
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.
OK, the discussion having to do with the Cardinals I must contribute my measly 2 cents. I am going to agree with NIck and Big Z that Warner is worthy of being considered an All-time Cardinal. I think the following factors are determinative here:
1. It's the Cardinals. They did not have a history of success or a tradition of winning prior to Warner, so you don't have guys like Bradshaw, Fouts, Staubach, Sammy Baugh and Y.A. Tittle to compare him to, as those other QBs on Jason's list do. If Warner had played for a franchise with a more storied history, I would say that he's not worthy of inclusion in the All-time (Steelers, Cowboys, Packers, etc.). When determining an all-time team, it's all relative to that team.
Considering that....
2. I believe that when you look back on Warner's Cardinals career in 5-10 years, you will point to his last 2 years as a turning point for the franchise. That kind of impact deserves recognition.
3. Warner will likely make the HOF (we've included him as a Modern Future). As such, and adding in his impact on the franchise as stated above, I anticipate that he will be inducted into the Ring of Honor at UOP, a symbol of his impact on the Cardinals franchise as an all-time Cardinal.
4. You can't judge today's longevity with a team vs. those in the pre-free agency era. It's going to be increasingly common to have players with a team for 4-6 years then leave for big free agent dollars elsewhere. Are we going to judge great, short careers on a lower scale than someone who plays for a team 8-10 years but is mediocre? I'm not saying Warner had 5 great years with the Cards, but this is going to be an issue going forward for these sets.
5. I don't think Warner as a Cardinal is any worse than some other members of other all-time sets (Rich Gannon an all-time Raider, Duante Culpepper an all-time Viking, etc.) At least Warner is a future HOFer whose HOF resume depends in large part on his time with the Cardinals. I don't think he would have a shot if not for what he did for that franchise his last 2 years.
Thank you for your time, and............GO CARDINALS!!! Ready for our sig line bet this year, Joe?
5. I don't think Warner as a Cardinal is any worse than some other members of other all-time sets (Rich Gannon an all-time Raider, Duante Culpepper an all-time Viking, etc.)
>>
AMEN TO THAT! And for me, that is the most glaring reason not to add ever guy who plays 4-5 good seasons for a franchise to that franchise's all-time team set...2 (or 3) wrongs don't make a right.
I like these points from Jasen however, in fact, probably the best pro Warner/Cards set argument I've seen so far...
I still personally think much of the pro-inclusion has to do with the new-ness of it. How about give it those 5-10 years Jasen speaks of and THEN look back and see you think Warner is still deserving. If Matt Leinhart wins 3 Super Bowls in the next 10 years with the Cards, no one will remember that Warner ever even played for them...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'm only doing one of the All Time Team Sets but I've always felt the fans that actually follow their chosen teams should have the loudest voice b/c they usually know their team the best. >>
Actually I believe the opposite. FANS of a team typically can't get rid of the rose colored glasses. This also affects the common fan and the stats based fan who have only seen or remember CURRENT players and tend to rank them higher and think they are better than the old timers, simply based on lack of information.
An OBJECTIVE viewpoint is really the only way to get a true snapshot. Especially in today's world, I can watch and/or follow any team/player in the league as if they were playing right down the street.
Jason >>
I don't mind the rose colored glasses and actually want to see choices from the heart appear in the All Time Team Sets. IMO save the rigidity for the HOF set. I see the the All Time Teams sets as ones that should be set-up for the fans. I do agree that former players should not be forgotten or ranked lower b/c the fans are uninformed.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
I'm only doing one of the All Time Team Sets but I've always felt the fans that actually follow their chosen teams should have the loudest voice b/c they usually know their team the best. >>
Actually I believe the opposite. FANS of a team typically can't get rid of the rose colored glasses. This also affects the common fan and the stats based fan who have only seen or remember CURRENT players and tend to rank them higher and think they are better than the old timers, simply based on lack of information.
An OBJECTIVE viewpoint is really the only way to get a true snapshot. Especially in today's world, I can watch and/or follow any team/player in the league as if they were playing right down the street.
Jason >>
as a packer fan i would agree that fans have rose colored glasses. i think in some respects it is better to have some outside confirmation from other football fans.
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'm only doing one of the All Time Team Sets but I've always felt the fans that actually follow their chosen teams should have the loudest voice b/c they usually know their team the best. >>
Actually I believe the opposite. FANS of a team typically can't get rid of the rose colored glasses. This also affects the common fan and the stats based fan who have only seen or remember CURRENT players and tend to rank them higher and think they are better than the old timers, simply based on lack of information.
An OBJECTIVE viewpoint is really the only way to get a true snapshot. Especially in today's world, I can watch and/or follow any team/player in the league as if they were playing right down the street.
Jason >>
as a packer fan i would agree that fans have rose colored glasses. i think in some respects it is better to have some outside confirmation from other football fans. >>
I agree that outsiders should be involved as well, but I do feel that the All Time Sets are the perfect place for fan favorites and guys that would fall into the Hall of Good category.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
As a raider fan...I would have to ask. How on earth is Bob Brown on the all time raider team. 3 years played...only 1 pro bowl? His best years were already behind him.
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>As a raider fan...I would have to ask. How on earth is Bob Brown on the all time raider team. 3 years played...only 1 pro bowl? His best years were already behind him. >>
Jay, I agree with you 150%. He should never have been added. But unfortunately, at some point someone requested a bunch of additions to that Raiders set who honestly do not belong. And apparently, they all got majority votes and got added. It's the reason I no longer collect any key card sets. The common sense of it went out the window, and instead these sets became exactly what dfr52 wanted them to become. And that is a place for fan favorites, without regard for "time in service" to the franchise, nor any weight placed on PROVEN, FACTUAL accomplishments. Simply guys that a few fans of the team liked. Kinda like the Baseball All-Star Game. Instead of the MOST DESERVING players being the starters, you get 100% who the fans vote for. And it usually ends up being majority players who's teams promote stuffing the ballot box. Texas is one of them, as I live 15 minutes from the stadium and cringe everytime they tell the stadium full of fans to vote early and often for all their favorite Rangers, with no mention of actually selecting the best qualified players.
This diminishes the value and/or stature of the team just like it diminishes the All-Time Team Sets IMO. As the guy who requested the addition of many of these sets, I can tell you the goal was NOT to have them be a free for all to add every Joe Delaney or Pat Tillman fan favorite type guy. But rather a place to have rookie HOFers, future HOFers AND top notch, borderline HOF/Hall of Very Good type guys of each team all in one place together. But, it seems as if that is now the minority opinion, as most of the all-time team sets now harbor at least a guy or 2 who doesn't meet the time in service or proven, recognized accomplishments necessary to be logically considered an "All-Time" great of that franchise.
It's sad, but hey the world is a changing. And we only have the voting public to blame!
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>As a raider fan...I would have to ask. How on earth is Bob Brown on the all time raider team. 3 years played...only 1 pro bowl? His best years were already behind him. >>
Jay, I agree with you 150%. He should never have been added. But unfortunately, at some point someone requested a bunch of additions to that Raiders set who honestly do not belong. And apparently, they all got majority votes and got added. It's the reason I no longer collect any key card sets. The common sense of it went out the window, and instead these sets became exactly what dfr52 wanted them to become. And that is a place for fan favorites, without regard for "time in service" to the franchise, nor any weight placed on PROVEN, FACTUAL accomplishments. Simply guys that a few fans of the team liked. Kinda like the Baseball All-Star Game. Instead of the MOST DESERVING players being the starters, you get 100% who the fans vote for. And it usually ends up being majority players who's teams promote stuffing the ballot box. Texas is one of them, as I live 15 minutes from the stadium and cringe everytime they tell the stadium full of fans to vote early and often for all their favorite Rangers, with no mention of actually selecting the best qualified players.
This diminishes the value and/or stature of the team just like it diminishes the All-Time Team Sets IMO. As the guy who requested the addition of many of these sets, I can tell you the goal was NOT to have them be a free for all to add every Joe Delaney or Pat Tillman fan favorite type guy. But rather a place to have rookie HOFers, future HOFers AND top notch, borderline HOF/Hall of Very Good type guys of each team all in one place together. But, it seems as if that is now the minority opinion, as most of the all-time team sets now harbor at least a guy or 2 who doesn't meet the time in service or proven, recognized accomplishments necessary to be logically considered an "All-Time" great of that franchise.
It's sad, but hey the world is a changing. And we only have the voting public to blame!
Jason >>
Jason,
We are doing are best with the Packers set. Though McGee and Fuzzy are borderline, they played key roles (and a long time) for the Packers of the 60's which happens to be one of the most dominant teams in NFL history. A look through the records books actually puts McGee up there with Hutson and Sharpe in most categories. And the OG of the Packers were the key to the dominant running game they had. I havent heard on the vote turned out for the additions of D. Robinson, Donald Drivier and Bill Howton have gone.
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
Warner had a losing record with the Cardinals. So did Neil Lomax and Jim Hart. The last starting QB to have a winning record with them was Charley Johnson, in the 1960s.
Nick >>
Jim Hart-180 games started as Cardinals QB....18 seasons with the team....34,000+ yards as a Cardinal.... Neil Lomax-101 games started as Cardinals QB....8 seasons with the team....22,000+ yards as a Cardinal.... Kurt Warner-57 games started as Cardinals QB....5 seasons with the team....15,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Lomax (IMO) is a questionable choice to begin with, and Warner can't even match those stats....So what he took a team to a Super Bowl loss...If he's worthy, then you guys need to add these QB's to these respective team sets (thank goodness I got out of the Key Card Sets...Some of these opinions on certain players just boggle my mind...lol)
Craig Morton-Cowboys AND Broncos Billy Kilmer- Redskins Doug Williams- Redskins Mark Rypien- Redskins Stan Humphries- Chargers Neil O'Donnell-Steelers Eli Manning- Giants Chris Chandler-Falcons
All match or exceed Warner's production in Arizona based on your standards. I mean, there are worse (more questionable) players on other sets, so hey request it and let the Cardinals collectors decide.
Jason >>
Other than possibly Chandler (whose team has several decades less of history than the Cardinals), no they don't. Prior to Warner, the Cardinals had 2 total playoff wins in team history. He won 4 playoff games and took the team to their only Super Bowl. Warner can legitimately be called the greatest QB in Cardinals team history. Of the trio of Warner, Lomax, and Hart, which one would you want starting for you in a big game? Or would you say that there should be no QB on the All-Time Great Cardinals registry set?
Other than Chandler, everyone else on your list was someone who QBed a team that has a long record of success under other QBs (in San DIego's case, primarily regular season success, but with what were at the time NFL major single-season records to go with it).
It takes a lot more to be an all-time great Cowboy, Redskin, Steeler, or Packer than it does to be an all-time great Cardinal.
Warner had a losing record with the Cardinals. So did Neil Lomax and Jim Hart. The last starting QB to have a winning record with them was Charley Johnson, in the 1960s.
Nick >>
Jim Hart-180 games started as Cardinals QB....18 seasons with the team....34,000+ yards as a Cardinal.... Neil Lomax-101 games started as Cardinals QB....8 seasons with the team....22,000+ yards as a Cardinal.... Kurt Warner-57 games started as Cardinals QB....5 seasons with the team....15,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Lomax (IMO) is a questionable choice to begin with, and Warner can't even match those stats....So what he took a team to a Super Bowl loss...If he's worthy, then you guys need to add these QB's to these respective team sets (thank goodness I got out of the Key Card Sets...Some of these opinions on certain players just boggle my mind...lol)
Craig Morton-Cowboys AND Broncos Billy Kilmer- Redskins Doug Williams- Redskins Mark Rypien- Redskins Stan Humphries- Chargers Neil O'Donnell-Steelers Eli Manning- Giants Chris Chandler-Falcons
All match or exceed Warner's production in Arizona based on your standards. I mean, there are worse (more questionable) players on other sets, so hey request it and let the Cardinals collectors decide.
Jason >>
Other than possibly Chandler (whose team has several decades less of history than the Cardinals), no they don't. Prior to Warner, the Cardinals had 2 total playoff wins in team history. He won 4 playoff games and took the team to their only Super Bowl. Warner can legitimately be called the greatest QB in Cardinals team history. Of the trio of Warner, Lomax, and Hart, which one would you want starting for you in a big game? Or would you say that there should be no QB on the All-Time Great Cardinals registry set?
Other than Chandler, everyone else on your list was someone who QBed a team that has a long record of success under other QBs (in San DIego's case, primarily regular season success, but with what were at the time NFL major single-season records to go with it).
It takes a lot more to be an all-time great Cowboy, Redskin, Steeler, or Packer than it does to be an all-time great Cardinal.
Nick >>
i dont understand why the different levels of greatness are required. by your implication you are saying that anyone on the Cowboy, Redskin, Steeler or Packer All Time team is far greater than anyone on the all time Cardinal Team set. i dont agree. i think it should be hard for all teams. if that means there are only 2-3 All Time players currently for a team so be it.
maybe its too restrictive, but then start another set. that is what we Packer fans did. we started the Packer HOF set to let fans collect players that arent quite at that high level but yet still played key roles for the team. does a gilbert brown measure up to a willie davis/henry jordan or reggie white, heck no, but he did play a key role for the teams of the 90's. same with an antonio freeman.
since these sets are now set it stone with players not being allowed to be removed, what happens if the cardinals do better under lienart than warner?
right now the packers set has two qb's (would be 3 but herber doesnt have a real rookie card). before favre one could have made the argument for either dickey or majik to be next to starr. but in retrospect now that would have looked really foolish. why cant people wait a bit first and let the dust settle for awhile. as i said before i will always think of warner as an all time ram not cardinal. i am sure people would like to see vick removed from the all time falcons set. miller did more than vick did for the team.
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
The Cardinals have had a long history (mostly lousy). They're not an expansion club. The last time they won a NFL Championship, their biggest star was Charley Trippi, Harry Truman was President, and Richard Nixon was a freshman member of the House of Representatives. [The time before that, there were no playoffs and teams could make their own schedules.]
Do you want a situation where the All-Time Great Steelers, Packers, and Bears sets are 3 or 4 times as large as the All-Time Great Cardinals set and several positions, including QB, go completely unrepresented on the Cardinals set? Because that's what the restrictive position on who should be in ATG sets would lead to (at least if it had been adopted before some guys who wouldn't make the other sets were already put in the Cardinals set).
<< <i>The Cardinals have had a long history (mostly lousy). They're not an expansion club. The last time they won a NFL Championship, their biggest star was Charley Trippi, Harry Truman was President, and Richard Nixon was a freshman member of the House of Representatives. [The time before that, there were no playoffs and teams could make their own schedules.]
Do you want a situation where the All-Time Great Steelers, Packers, and Bears sets are 3 or 4 times as large as the All-Time Great Cardinals set and several positions, including QB, go completely unrepresented on the Cardinals set? Because that's what the restrictive position on who should be in ATG sets would lead to (at least if it had been adopted before some guys who wouldn't make the other sets were already put in the Cardinals set).
Nick >>
Well right now they are actually even. Packers set has 23 and Cards have 23. Dont guite see how you could say that they are even. Packers have 12 championships to the one or two for the Cardinals. Packers have 21 HOFers with another 5 having limited service with the Packers. Cards have 11 and 6 respectively.
As I said what i would prefer, more restrictive sets. As such i dont collect any of the other all time team sets. Just look at the numbers below for each team already.
So there already is the problem you suggested would happen with my method but with what is happening the way things are now.
So if we need everything to be "equal" (sounds very PC) whom should be the QB's for the Ravens, Bucs and Falcons?
Ravens dont have one (but Dilfer did win a SB and some playoff games) Bucs..right now its D. Williams and Vinny (but Brad Johnson won a SB and most of the teams playoff games) Falcons...its Vick (yet Miller took them to the SB)
The sets say the all time great players for the team...not for each position or that there has to be at least one player for each position.
If you look at the sets with the most collectors they tend to reflect that more restrictive sets are more popular. Packers have 33, Steelers have 35, Cowboys have 23, Niners have 22, Dolphins have 21. You might say well those are the popular teams. I say the Bears are pretty popular with a strong fan base, yet they only have 6 collectors for the massive 72 card set. Where some of the sets go off base is the rush to add young players. Even with the Steelers you have to wonder about how Big Ben and even Polamalu (with his injuries) are going to play out at the end of their careers. I think players need to be well established with that team or even retired before being added. But again those are just my 2 cents.
The registry is for the masses. I only take part in sets that I like. I even collect my own PSA sets that arent up...why because I dont think that either many would collect it or its not that interesting to many people. Yes I have my Favre ticket sets but I requested those more the uniquness of the sets and his streak (ie they do have something to do with the history of the NFL). My set of autos of players that have caught a TD from Favre on the other hand isnt up anywhere but in my showcase and I havent even updated that online in awhile. If the masses want some set its up to them...actually its not even the masses, one person is all that is required to request a set.
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
We are doing are best with the Packers set. Though McGee and Fuzzy are borderline, they played key roles (and a long time) for the Packers of the 60's which happens to be one of the most dominant teams in NFL history. A look through the records books actually puts McGee up there with Hutson and Sharpe in most categories. And the OG of the Packers were the key to the dominant running game they had. I havent heard on the vote turned out for the additions of D. Robinson, Donald Drivier and Bill Howton have gone.
Jay >>
Yes you have. And typically the sets with 20+ collectors can police themselves as they have a large enough composite opinion to be able to do so. Honestly, I have no problem with any additions to sets with 20+ collectors for that reason. The problem is mainly the smaller sets, in which only a few votes can affect an addition or denial.
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.
It takes a lot more to be an all-time great Cowboy, Redskin, Steeler, or Packer than it does to be an all-time great Cardinal.
Nick >>
And THAT IMO is a HUGE mistake, to look at that way. Because these sets are not just for the NOW. The hope should be that these sets remain LONG TERM, and 20 years from now, the Cardinals may have a much brighter history under their belt. My point being that the standards for additions to team sets SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR EACH TEAM. Just because one team is crappy, or only has a 10 year history, we should lower the standards? That really does not bode well for the long term health of the sets. Because what you are proposing means that the standards could change every year simply based on the success of the franchise.
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.
Do you want a situation where the All-Time Great Steelers, Packers, and Bears sets are 3 or 4 times as large as the All-Time Great Cardinals set and several positions, including QB, go completely unrepresented on the Cardinals set? Because that's what the restrictive position on who should be in ATG sets would lead to (at least if it had been adopted before some guys who wouldn't make the other sets were already put in the Cardinals set).
Nick >>
Yes, I absolutely would like to see that. Also, Jim Hart did FAR AND AWAY enough to be added to franchise All-Time set IMO. Just because a guy doesn't win playoff games doesn't mean his career was meaningless or worthless. DO some research on Hart, he was a GREAT QB. Lomax, borderline and I could go either way....But Jim Hart belongs on the set.
No I don;t think every set has to have a QB. Who cares if Byron Leftwich is the greatest QB in team history, he's not an all-timer....
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.
So there already is the problem you suggested would happen with my method but with what is happening the way things are now.
So if we need everything to be "equal" (sounds very PC) whom should be the QB's for the Ravens, Bucs and Falcons?
Ravens dont have one (but Dilfer did win a SB and some playoff games) Bucs..right now its D. Williams and Vinny (but Brad Johnson won a SB and most of the teams playoff games) Falcons...its Vick (yet Miller took them to the SB)
The sets say the all time great players for the team...not for each position or that there has to be at least one player for each position.
If you look at the sets with the most collectors they tend to reflect that more restrictive sets are more popular. Packers have 33, Steelers have 35, Cowboys have 23, Niners have 22, Dolphins have 21. You might say well those are the popular teams. I say the Bears are pretty popular with a strong fan base, yet they only have 6 collectors for the massive 72 card set. Where some of the sets go off base is the rush to add young players. Even with the Steelers you have to wonder about how Big Ben and even Polamalu (with his injuries) are going to play out at the end of their careers. I think players need to be well established with that team or even retired before being added. But again those are just my 2 cents.
The registry is for the masses. I only take part in sets that I like. I even collect my own PSA sets that arent up...why because I dont think that either many would collect it or its not that interesting to many people. Yes I have my Favre ticket sets but I requested those more the uniquness of the sets and his streak (ie they do have something to do with the history of the NFL). My set of autos of players that have caught a TD from Favre on the other hand isnt up anywhere but in my showcase and I havent even updated that online in awhile. If the masses want some set its up to them...actually its not even the masses, one person is all that is required to request a set. >>
WOW, jradke4 for President! Standing ovation from this side of the isle for this post. I've never seen it stated any better or more clearly.
Bravo, 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.
Do you want a situation where the All-Time Great Steelers, Packers, and Bears sets are 3 or 4 times as large as the All-Time Great Cardinals set and several positions, including QB, go completely unrepresented on the Cardinals set? Because that's what the restrictive position on who should be in ATG sets would lead to (at least if it had been adopted before some guys who wouldn't make the other sets were already put in the Cardinals set).
Nick >>
Yes, I absolutely would like to see that. Also, Jim Hart did FAR AND AWAY enough to be added to franchise All-Time set IMO. Just because a guy doesn't win playoff games doesn't mean his career was meaningless or worthless. DO some research on Hart, he was a GREAT QB. Lomax, borderline and I could go either way....But Jim Hart belongs on the set.
No I don;t think every set has to have a QB. Who cares if Byron Leftwich is the greatest QB in team history, he's not an all-timer.... >>
It's pointless to talk about All-Timers on a team that has been around less than 20 years, but the Cardinals are not an expansion team.
Jim Hart was durable and good at avoiding sacks, but completing barely half your passes in the '70s with more INTs than TDs while racking up lots of attempts and yards, and NEVER winning a playoff game is just not a stellar resume to be an all-time great for any team. The Cardinals were also among the worst offenses in the league for many of those years. As far as his accolades, one of his Pro Bowl seasons (as well as the year he was named 2nd team All-Pro) came in a year when he wasn't even in the top 10 in the league in yards per attempt or yards per completion. Hart was a poor man's Dave Krieg; not a dominant QB.
<< <i> It's pointless to talk about All-Timers on a team that has been around less than 20 years, but the Cardinals are not an expansion team.
Jim Hart was durable and good at avoiding sacks, but completing barely half your passes in the '70s with more INTs than TDs while racking up lots of attempts and yards, and NEVER winning a playoff game is just not a stellar resume to be an all-time great for any team. The Cardinals were also among the worst offenses in the league for many of those years. As far as his accolades, one of his Pro Bowl seasons (as well as the year he was named 2nd team All-Pro) came in a year when he wasn't even in the top 10 in the league in yards per attempt or yards per completion. Hart was a poor man's Dave Krieg; not a dominant QB.
Nick >>
Incorrect on almost every account.
---All-timers on a team around less than 20 years????
So you're telling me that Johnny Unitas was not an all-timer for the Colts? Is Steve Largent not an all-timer??? That makes zero sense. If you apply the same standards to the necessary accolades for being included in any all-time team set, then it DOES NOT MATTER what the accomplishments of the franchise are. And it shouldn't matter if the Cardinals were crappy for 50 years prior to Warner. Or that the Packers were the Team of the 60's...Use the same logic for every team and every franchise.
---Jim Hart....
Honestly, based on your write up of him, I can not imagine that you have even watched any football from the 70s. Barely completing half your passes...More INTs than TD...These are the NORM for QBs in the 70s..He was the starting QB for the franchise for FIFTEEN YEARS!!!! From 1973-1977, under Coach Don Coryell, the Cardinals were one of the top offenses in the NFL and the passing game was consistently among the leagues best. Not surprisingly, all 4 of Jim Hart's Pro Bowl appearances came during those years. 180 games as the starting QB of ANY franchise is deserving of being placed on that all-time team.
No one ever said he was a DOMINANT QB, and no one ever said you have to be a DOMINANT, HOF QB to be a part of the all-time sets. What has been said is that there should be some sort of standards and/or requirements. Time in service of the franchise, individual accolades (Pro Bowls, All-Pros, stats, etc) being #1 and #2, with playoff and Super Bowl being tie breaker type issues for borderline guys.
This is my final word on this issue. I no longer collect these sets, but I am still passionate about the issue. Jay honestly said it all, if that doesn't make sense or seem logical to you, then we will just have to agree to disagree. If you want every 5 year player added to these teams, then BY ALL MEANS send the request to PSA. Most of the key card sets are FUBAR already anyway. lolol
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.
The argument on Unitas and Largent is just silly. They were all-time great players for NFL history, regardless of what franchise or franchises they were with. That's not an argument for picking All-Time teams when there are players in the league with more longevity than the franchise has.
Hart's stats were around the norm for QBs of the era - not around the norm for the top QBs (Dawson, Tarkenton, Anderson, Staubach, Griese, etc.).
Year after year, if you look at where he fell on leaderboards, he ranked higher in pass attempts than he did in yards or TDs. That's not a mark of greatness in any era.
Other than the Coryell years, the Cardinals franchise was consistently downright lousy with Hart as the QB - and when Coryell left, Hart immediately stopped being a Pro Bowl QB - and Coryell's new franchise was #1 in passing yards 7 of the next 8 years (and #2 in the 8th, which was Marino's single-season yard record season).
Hart was an average QB who was lucky enough to be paired with maybe the greatest offensive coach in football history for several seasons. Before that, he did nothing noteworthy. After that, he did nothing noteworthy.
The only reason he held a starting job for any length of time is that the Bidwill brothers were too cheap to actually recruit or pay for football talent.
Despite all your claims of being against dilution of sets, inflating the importance of longevity itself dilutes sets.
Coming up with straw men like suggesting that other people want every 5 year player to be added makes it hard to take the rest of your argument seriously.
<< <i>The argument on Unitas and Largent is just silly. They were all-time great players for NFL history, regardless of what franchise or franchises they were with. That's not an argument for picking All-Time teams when there are players in the league with more longevity than the franchise has. >>
Unitas and Largent were both all-time great players for teams who were brand new to the league at the time (Colts and Seahawks0
<< <i>Hart's stats were around the norm for QBs of the era - not around the norm for the top QBs (Dawson, Tarkenton, Anderson, Staubach, Griese, etc.).
Year after year, if you look at where he fell on leaderboards, he ranked higher in pass attempts than he did in yards or TDs. That's not a mark of greatness in any era.
Other than the Coryell years, the Cardinals franchise was consistently downright lousy with Hart as the QB - and when Coryell left, Hart immediately stopped being a Pro Bowl QB - and Coryell's new franchise was #1 in passing yards 7 of the next 8 years (and #2 in the 8th, which was Marino's single-season yard record season).
Hart was an average QB who was lucky enough to be paired with maybe the greatest offensive coach in football history for several seasons. Before that, he did nothing noteworthy. After that, he did nothing noteworthy.
The only reason he held a starting job for any length of time is that the Bidwill brothers were too cheap to actually recruit or pay for football talent.
Despite all your claims of being against dilution of sets, inflating the importance of longevity itself dilutes sets.
Coming up with straw men like suggesting that other people want every 5 year player to be added makes it hard to take the rest of your argument seriously.
Nick >>
OK, so I'm trying to understand exactly what you are actually debating here. That Jim Hart was not HOF caliber and hence doesn't deserve to be on the Cardinals set? So you are saying only HOF caliber players should be on these sets and not any very good players?
Are you also saying that starting 180 games as a franchises QB over an 18 year period doesn't constitute addition to the all-time team sets? Yet Warner belongs simply because he took a once terrible franchise to a Super Bowl? Even though he only played for them 5 years, went to one Pro Bowl and started 57 games for them?
Just wanting to clarify that the above is really your stance. Maybe I'm mis-reading you because to me these things contradict each other as one is an EXCLUSIVE view and one is INCLUSIVE. You can't have it both ways because once you start adding (or not adding) certain guys with specific resumes, it sets a PRECEDENT. This is exactly what ended up ruining most of these sets. One card or one player was allowed in one set. So new collector comes along, sees this and figures his guy, with similar resume should be added (or not added) to the set he cares about.
Pick your side and stick with it man...lolol
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.
This is a little off topic, but why is Hornung part of the All Time Rushers Set? I tried to answer my own question but could not figure out why he is included in the set.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i>The argument on Unitas and Largent is just silly. They were all-time great players for NFL history, regardless of what franchise or franchises they were with. That's not an argument for picking All-Time teams when there are players in the league with more longevity than the franchise has.
Hart's stats were around the norm for QBs of the era - not around the norm for the top QBs (Dawson, Tarkenton, Anderson, Staubach, Griese, etc.).
Year after year, if you look at where he fell on leaderboards, he ranked higher in pass attempts than he did in yards or TDs. That's not a mark of greatness in any era.
Other than the Coryell years, the Cardinals franchise was consistently downright lousy with Hart as the QB - and when Coryell left, Hart immediately stopped being a Pro Bowl QB - and Coryell's new franchise was #1 in passing yards 7 of the next 8 years (and #2 in the 8th, which was Marino's single-season yard record season).
Hart was an average QB who was lucky enough to be paired with maybe the greatest offensive coach in football history for several seasons. Before that, he did nothing noteworthy. After that, he did nothing noteworthy.
The only reason he held a starting job for any length of time is that the Bidwill brothers were too cheap to actually recruit or pay for football talent.
Despite all your claims of being against dilution of sets, inflating the importance of longevity itself dilutes sets.
Coming up with straw men like suggesting that other people want every 5 year player to be added makes it hard to take the rest of your argument seriously.
Nick >>
well no franchise has more longevity than the Cardinals.
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>This is a little off topic, but why is Hornung part of the All Time Rushers Set? I tried to answer my own question but could not figure out why he is included in the set. >>
its that he is in the HOF as a running back. i think that would be enough to make you an all time rusher. though his election to the HOF wasnt only due to his rushing skills. he was an all around player (rusher, receiver, kicker and even a passer). he was also a scoring machine...and points are what win games.
right now current players need, i think, over 10,000 yards to be added. nearly all current HOF running backs are at 10,000+ yards. those that are, the more recent players (ie 16 game season players). here are those that are over 10,000.
E Smith Payton Sanders Dickerson Dorsett Brown Allen Harris Thomas Riggins OJ
Everyone else is under 10,000 yards.
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>This is a little off topic, but why is Hornung part of the All Time Rushers Set? I tried to answer my own question but could not figure out why he is included in the set. >>
its that he is in the HOF as a running back. i think that would be enough to make you an all time rusher. though his election to the HOF wasnt only due to his rushing skills. he was an all around player (rusher, receiver, kicker and even a passer). he was also a scoring machine...and points are what win games.
right now current players need, i think, over 10,000 yards to be added. nearly all current HOF running backs are at 10,000+ yards. those that are, the more recent players (ie 16 game season players). here are those that are over 10,000.
E Smith Payton Sanders Dickerson Dorsett Brown Allen Harris Thomas Riggins OJ
Everyone else is under 10,000 yards. >>
Ok, then why aren't Matson, McElhenny, J.H. Johnson, or Kelly in the set if Hornung, Csonka, Taylor, and Campbell are included?
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i>The argument on Unitas and Largent is just silly. They were all-time great players for NFL history, regardless of what franchise or franchises they were with. That's not an argument for picking All-Time teams when there are players in the league with more longevity than the franchise has. >>
Unitas and Largent were both all-time great players for teams who were brand new to the league at the time (Colts and Seahawks0
<< <i>Hart's stats were around the norm for QBs of the era - not around the norm for the top QBs (Dawson, Tarkenton, Anderson, Staubach, Griese, etc.).
Year after year, if you look at where he fell on leaderboards, he ranked higher in pass attempts than he did in yards or TDs. That's not a mark of greatness in any era.
Other than the Coryell years, the Cardinals franchise was consistently downright lousy with Hart as the QB - and when Coryell left, Hart immediately stopped being a Pro Bowl QB - and Coryell's new franchise was #1 in passing yards 7 of the next 8 years (and #2 in the 8th, which was Marino's single-season yard record season).
Hart was an average QB who was lucky enough to be paired with maybe the greatest offensive coach in football history for several seasons. Before that, he did nothing noteworthy. After that, he did nothing noteworthy.
The only reason he held a starting job for any length of time is that the Bidwill brothers were too cheap to actually recruit or pay for football talent.
Despite all your claims of being against dilution of sets, inflating the importance of longevity itself dilutes sets.
Coming up with straw men like suggesting that other people want every 5 year player to be added makes it hard to take the rest of your argument seriously.
Nick >>
OK, so I'm trying to understand exactly what you are actually debating here. That Jim Hart was not HOF caliber and hence doesn't deserve to be on the Cardinals set? So you are saying only HOF caliber players should be on these sets and not any very good players?
Are you also saying that starting 180 games as a franchises QB over an 18 year period doesn't constitute addition to the all-time team sets? Yet Warner belongs simply because he took a once terrible franchise to a Super Bowl? Even though he only played for them 5 years, went to one Pro Bowl and started 57 games for them?
Just wanting to clarify that the above is really your stance. Maybe I'm mis-reading you because to me these things contradict each other as one is an EXCLUSIVE view and one is INCLUSIVE. You can't have it both ways because once you start adding (or not adding) certain guys with specific resumes, it sets a PRECEDENT. This is exactly what ended up ruining most of these sets. One card or one player was allowed in one set. So new collector comes along, sees this and figures his guy, with similar resume should be added (or not added) to the set he cares about.
Pick your side and stick with it man...lolol
Jason >>
You're the one who has been demanding exclusivity yet insisting that a particular player belongs based on one limited criterion who wouldn't qualify by the standards you've supported for other team sets. I personally favor an inclusive approach, and if it means rose-colored glasses by fans of a particular team lets on the Rocky Bleiers and Lyle Alzados of the NFL (probably the 2 most popular old-timer jerseys of non-superstar players), that's fine with me. It's fans of a particular team, for the most part, who collect All-Time Greats sets for that team.
As far as ruining sets, I don't think the Bears set is ruined by being large - it just has a really daunting card at the top of the set - Nagurski. You could complete most ATG team sets in nice grade for less than the cost of a PSA 2 Nagurski. That's a major disincentive to even starting the set.
Of the 6 team sets that have 20 or more registered collectors, only the Packers (and maybe the 49ers) could be described as exclusive - the Dolphins and Bills sets are very, very inclusive.
<< <i> It's fans of a particular team, for the most part, who collect All-Time Greats sets for that team.
Nick >>
You sure about that, or you just assume that is the case? Take a look across all the Key Card sets, specifically the team sets. 75%(some of the sets 100%) of the registered collectors have MORE THAN ONE team set listed. In fact, I'll even do your leg work for you. Here are the FACTS:
All-Time 49ers (22) -19 current collectors-16 of the 19 collect multiple teams All-Time Bears (6)- 6 current collectors-5 of the 6 collect multiple teams All-Time Bengals (9)- 9 current collectors-8 of the 9 collect multiple teams All-Time Bills (24)- 20 current collectors-15 of the 20 collect multiple teams All-Time Broncos (15)- 12 current collectors-9 of the 12 collect multiple teams
Nuff said? Shall I go on? Feel free to peruse the other team sets and you will see similar numbers. So, please, moving forward let's stick with the facts shall we? Throwing out random incorrect statements absolutely crushes your credibility. And really makes me question why we are even having this debate. Go do a little research and get your facts together that back up your opinions and then come back to us.
Bottom line is that the majority (not all) of the collectors of these sets are HALL OF FAME ROOKIE PLAYER set collectors, which is why this subject even belongs in this thread to begin with. VERY VERY few of the collectors on these sets are truly chasing them to completion because they are fans of the team/franchise. This is not my opinion, this is what the registered sets show us, and if you disagree so be it. Make all the requests to add that you want. If they get the votes, then they get added. Pretty simple, and unfortunately leaves ALL OF US at the mercy of the vote. Because if you make a request, you've got a 50/50 chance it gets accepted. And a denial usually means PSA will not re-request the addition again.
To me, the HOF team sets are looking like the way to go. No opinions, no collectors requesting additions, none of the drama. The HOF decides which players are "significant" for the specific franchises, and the HOF voters tell us who is a HOFer or not. No disrespect, but I very much like having to follow the HOF and the HOF voters opinions vs. collectors such as yourself who want either every guy who made a big play for a team added to the all-time team set, or the collectors who want every card added that they just so happen to have just gotten back from PSA.
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.
You're the one who has been demanding exclusivity yet insisting that a particular player belongs based on one limited criterion who wouldn't qualify by the standards you've supported for other team sets. I personally favor an inclusive approach, and if it means rose-colored glasses by fans of a particular team lets on the Rocky Bleiers and Lyle Alzados of the NFL (probably the 2 most popular old-timer jerseys of non-superstar players), that's fine with me. It's fans of a particular team, for the most part, who collect All-Time Greats sets for that team.
As far as ruining sets, I don't think the Bears set is ruined by being large - it just has a really daunting card at the top of the set - Nagurski. You could complete most ATG team sets in nice grade for less than the cost of a PSA 2 Nagurski. That's a major disincentive to even starting the set.
Of the 6 team sets that have 20 or more registered collectors, only the Packers (and maybe the 49ers) could be described as exclusive - the Dolphins and Bills sets are very, very inclusive.
Nick >>
i think you could have found two better examples than the Bills and Dolphins. take out HOF players, SB MVP's and other players that have made it past first round of voting in the HOF and there arent too many way out there examples. maybe you dont think zach thomas or jason taylor will get any HOF votes. or that jack kemp meant nothing to the bills. i will give you that mare and moulds are a little out of whack. but then again so is devin hester, neal anderson, todd bell, trace armstrong and few others on the bears set. half of the starting lineup from their only superbowl championship team is in the set. but only 3 (with Dent coming soon) are in the HOF from that team.
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>This is a little off topic, but why is Hornung part of the All Time Rushers Set? I tried to answer my own question but could not figure out why he is included in the set. >>
its that he is in the HOF as a running back. i think that would be enough to make you an all time rusher. though his election to the HOF wasnt only due to his rushing skills. he was an all around player (rusher, receiver, kicker and even a passer). he was also a scoring machine...and points are what win games.
right now current players need, i think, over 10,000 yards to be added. nearly all current HOF running backs are at 10,000+ yards. those that are, the more recent players (ie 16 game season players). here are those that are over 10,000.
E Smith Payton Sanders Dickerson Dorsett Brown Allen Harris Thomas Riggins OJ
Everyone else is under 10,000 yards. >>
Ok, then why aren't Matson, McElhenny, J.H. Johnson, or Kelly in the set if Hornung, Csonka, Taylor, and Campbell are included? >>
i am not sure. i didnt request the original set nor am i all that sure other than i think 10,000 yards is the current requirement (i could be wrong about that number it might be 12,00o). we would need to find out from some of the original set owners as to what the logic was in who was in and out to start with.
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>This is a little off topic, but why is Hornung part of the All Time Rushers Set? I tried to answer my own question but could not figure out why he is included in the set. >>
its that he is in the HOF as a running back. i think that would be enough to make you an all time rusher. though his election to the HOF wasnt only due to his rushing skills. he was an all around player (rusher, receiver, kicker and even a passer). he was also a scoring machine...and points are what win games.
right now current players need, i think, over 10,000 yards to be added. nearly all current HOF running backs are at 10,000+ yards. those that are, the more recent players (ie 16 game season players). here are those that are over 10,000.
E Smith Payton Sanders Dickerson Dorsett Brown Allen Harris Thomas Riggins OJ
Everyone else is under 10,000 yards. >>
Ok, then why aren't Matson, McElhenny, J.H. Johnson, or Kelly in the set if Hornung, Csonka, Taylor, and Campbell are included? >>
i am not sure. i didnt request the original set nor am i all that sure other than i think 10,000 yards is the current requirement (i could be wrong about that number it might be 12,00o). we would need to find out from some of the original set owners as to what the logic was in who was in and out to start with. >>
Excellent suggestion!
Would any of the original set owners please explain the original qualifications/criteria? I don't understand why Hornung was included over some of the other backs.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i> It's fans of a particular team, for the most part, who collect All-Time Greats sets for that team.
Nick >>
You sure about that, or you just assume that is the case? Take a look across all the Key Card sets, specifically the team sets. 75%(some of the sets 100%) of the registered collectors have MORE THAN ONE team set listed. In fact, I'll even do your leg work for you. Here are the FACTS:
All-Time 49ers (22) -19 current collectors-16 of the 19 collect multiple teams All-Time Bears (6)- 6 current collectors-5 of the 6 collect multiple teams All-Time Bengals (9)- 9 current collectors-8 of the 9 collect multiple teams All-Time Bills (24)- 20 current collectors-15 of the 20 collect multiple teams All-Time Broncos (15)- 12 current collectors-9 of the 12 collect multiple teams
Nuff said? Shall I go on? Feel free to peruse the other team sets and you will see similar numbers. So, please, moving forward let's stick with the facts shall we? Throwing out random incorrect statements absolutely crushes your credibility. And really makes me question why we are even having this debate. Go do a little research and get your facts together that back up your opinions and then come back to us.
Bottom line is that the majority (not all) of the collectors of these sets are HALL OF FAME ROOKIE PLAYER set collectors, which is why this subject even belongs in this thread to begin with. VERY VERY few of the collectors on these sets are truly chasing them to completion because they are fans of the team/franchise. This is not my opinion, this is what the registered sets show us, and if you disagree so be it. Make all the requests to add that you want. If they get the votes, then they get added. Pretty simple, and unfortunately leaves ALL OF US at the mercy of the vote. Because if you make a request, you've got a 50/50 chance it gets accepted. And a denial usually means PSA will not re-request the addition again.
To me, the HOF team sets are looking like the way to go. No opinions, no collectors requesting additions, none of the drama. The HOF decides which players are "significant" for the specific franchises, and the HOF voters tell us who is a HOFer or not. No disrespect, but I very much like having to follow the HOF and the HOF voters opinions vs. collectors such as yourself who want either every guy who made a big play for a team added to the all-time team set, or the collectors who want every card added that they just so happen to have just gotten back from PSA.
Jason >>
You are conflating 2 different things: people collecting these team ATG sets, and people who registered team ATG sets that overlap something they're collecting (often because it gives them free grades). That someone with a strong HOF rookie player collection (Fight4OldDC, for example) takes the 30 seconds to register a partial team ATG set consisting of the people from that team who are in his HOF Rookie and Future HOF Rookie sets doesn't mean he's collecting the team set. Back in the V1 days of the set registry, those generally didn't get registered. Now, why not click the "Start This Set". Even if you have no intention of getting anyone for the set who doesn't fall within your collecting focus, it's not as if you're losing anything.
Maybe the free grades are what this push for exclusivity is all about. The closer a team ATG set is to being a subset of the HOF Rookie and Future HOF Rookie sets, the easier it is for HOF collectors to get additional free grades.
jradke - you didn't even pick the most out-of-whack ones. How about Nat Moore, Garo Yepremian (making a huge Super Bowl play for the other team is not a plus), and Joe Cribbs.
Comments
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Im going to go with Unitas, he seems to be the person that comes up alot in those circles and discussions. I was watching a video a few years ago where they were interviewing HOF'ers and asked each of them who they would start a team around, the #1 answer was Johnny U. What was the #2 answer you say, Steve Fu#@ing Largent of course....
Your man crush on Largent is bordering on the obsessive. I visualize you adding names to your "People to Kill" list ala the Danny McGrath character Steve Buscemi played in Billy Madison any time someone posts a negative comment about former Senator Largent...
And, yes, I can see you wearing the lipstick, too!!!
<< <i>Joe:
Your man crush on Largent is bordering on the obsessive. I visualize you adding names to your "People to Kill" list ala the Danny McGrath character Steve Buscemi played in Billy Madison any time someone posts a negative comment about former Senator Largent...
[MG] >>
Lets get a few things straight here Scott!
1. Largent was a Representative, not a Senator. Not that I would expect YOU to know the difference of the branches of government, you are from Jersey after all....
2. I think you stole that coolio scan of "People to Kill" from a post I made on Cardboard! Get your own funny jokes tough guy! Quit riding my coat tails
3. You just made said list of people to kill mandingo! (Although I may be bribed in Balty with some buffalo wings.... call me big boy)
4. Unwritten rule, dont mess with a guys man crush dude. I dont make fun of your sports hero's
<< <i>Any bets on who the #1 player is? >>
My money is on Jim Brown, with Largent a close (one hundred and) 2nd.
Jasen
<< <i>1. Largent was a Representative, not a Senator. Not that I would expect YOU to know the difference of the branches of government, you are from Jersey after all....
2. I think you stole that coolio scan of "People to Kill" from a post I made on Cardboard! Get your own funny jokes tough guy! Quit riding my coat tails
>>
My apologies to former Representative Largent. I realize that had he been a Senator, he'd have been in some sort of scandal as that's what most of this country's Senators seem to do instead of legislating.
I neither saw your post, nor did I copy you. I prefer to stay away from your coattails as the stench of the exhaust isn't very pleasant.
Instead of the wings, how about a pulled pork sandwich and a cold brew at Boog's during the ballgame Thursday night? Afterward, you're on your own when you go out looking for a:
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>Just a thought about All-Time Team sets: I can think of one guy who essentially played no more than 5 years for each of 2 different teams, yet belongs on each of their All-Time Teams: Kurt Warner.
Nick >>
Warner played 6 seasons for the Rams, 3 Pro Bowls, 2-time first Team All-Pro, and a Super Bowl MVP award. I could buy him as an All-Time Ram....But For the Cards? 5 years, 1 Pro Bowl and a Super Bowl loss? Nope, sorry. Look at the history of the Cardinals and tell me how Warner is one of the top 24 players to ever done a Cardinals jersey...With such a short Cardinals career, and a losing record as a Cardinals QB, are you telling me the one Super Bowl appearance alone qualifies him as an all-time great? I just don't understand this line of thinking.
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 a thought about All-Time Team sets: I can think of one guy who essentially played no more than 5 years for each of 2 different teams, yet belongs on each of their All-Time Teams: Kurt Warner.
Nick >>
Warner played 6 seasons for the Rams, 3 Pro Bowls, 2-time first Team All-Pro, and a Super Bowl MVP award. I could buy him as an All-Time Ram....But For the Cards? 5 years, 1 Pro Bowl and a Super Bowl loss? Nope, sorry. Look at the history of the Cardinals and tell me how Warner is one of the top 24 players to ever done a Cardinals jersey...With such a short Cardinals career, and a losing record as a Cardinals QB, are you telling me the one Super Bowl appearance alone qualifies him as an all-time great? I just don't understand this line of thinking.
Jason >>
I couldnt agree more with Jason. Just not enough time or accomplishments with the Cards. Not long with the Rams but many more accomplishments. We could almost add Em Tunnell to the Packers set. Played 3 years with the Packers, 1 Probowl and 1 NFL Championship. Almost a two but they lost in 1960, lost to the Eagle 13-17. Here's how close he was to two.
The Eagles won despite being outgained 401-296, with only 13 first downs to the Packers' 22. Chuck Bednarik tackled Jim Taylor on the final play of the game at the Eagles' eight yard line (Bednarik was the last Eagle between Taylor and the end zone), and remained atop Taylor for several seconds as the final seconds ticked off the clock, ensuring the Packers could not run another play. It would prove to be Packers' coach Vince Lombardi's sole career playoff loss as a coach, and is the Eagles' most recent championship.
After the game Lombardi, swore he would never lose another championship game.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
As for his tenure with the Cardinals, he led the team to 4 playoff wins and their only Super Bowl appearance. Since the NFL adopted a playoff system, the Cardinals had only 2 other playoff wins in team history.
Warner holds a number of single-game and single-season records for the team.
The Cardinals history is not replete with stars. Their Ring of Honor includes only 13 men, with an owner, a coach, and someone inducted because he became an American hero by giving up football among them. There have been only 12 NFL HOFers who have played more than 1 game for the Cardinals. Only 102 men have ever made the Pro Bowl as a Cardinal, with more than half of those only making it once.
Warner had a losing record with the Cardinals. So did Neil Lomax and Jim Hart. The last starting QB to have a winning record with them was Charley Johnson, in the 1960s.
Given the outsize impact QBs have on a team's success compared to other players, I would place Warner among the 24 greatest Cardinals players of all time.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>Interesting observations from NFL Films guru Steve Sabol. Especially the paragraph on Dick Butkus which ties in to our discussion last month.
Link to Story
Jason >>
Thanks for posting that, I look forward to the show this fall.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
Warner had a losing record with the Cardinals. So did Neil Lomax and Jim Hart. The last starting QB to have a winning record with them was Charley Johnson, in the 1960s.
Nick >>
Jim Hart-180 games started as Cardinals QB....18 seasons with the team....34,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Neil Lomax-101 games started as Cardinals QB....8 seasons with the team....22,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Kurt Warner-57 games started as Cardinals QB....5 seasons with the team....15,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Lomax (IMO) is a questionable choice to begin with, and Warner can't even match those stats....So what he took a team to a Super Bowl loss...If he's worthy, then you guys need to add these QB's to these respective team sets (thank goodness I got out of the Key Card Sets...Some of these opinions on certain players just boggle my mind...lol)
Craig Morton-Cowboys AND Broncos
Billy Kilmer- Redskins
Doug Williams- Redskins
Mark Rypien- Redskins
Stan Humphries- Chargers
Neil O'Donnell-Steelers
Eli Manning- Giants
Chris Chandler-Falcons
All match or exceed Warner's production in Arizona based on your standards. I mean, there are worse (more questionable) players on other sets, so hey request it and let the Cardinals collectors decide.
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 a thought about All-Time Team sets: I can think of one guy who essentially played no more than 5 years for each of 2 different teams, yet belongs on each of their All-Time Teams: Kurt Warner.
Nick >>
Warner played 6 seasons for the Rams, 3 Pro Bowls, 2-time first Team All-Pro, and a Super Bowl MVP award. I could buy him as an All-Time Ram....But For the Cards? 5 years, 1 Pro Bowl and a Super Bowl loss? Nope, sorry. Look at the history of the Cardinals and tell me how Warner is one of the top 24 players to ever done a Cardinals jersey...With such a short Cardinals career, and a losing record as a Cardinals QB, are you telling me the one Super Bowl appearance alone qualifies him as an all-time great? I just don't understand this line of thinking.
Jason >>
I will admit first of all that I am a Cardinal fan so I may be bias. I feel Kurt would be a welcomed addition to the All-Time Cardinal set. There is no denying he had a short career with the Cardinals and yes he had a losing record as a starter. But if you dig into that stat a little bit you will find that only 5 Cardinals QB's have winning records and yes that is all-time they are as follows;
Charley Johnson from 1961-1969 went 36-28-5
Jay Schroeder in his only year in 1994 went 5-3
Frank Tripueka in his only year in 1950 went 3-2
Ralph Guglielmi in his only year in 1961 went 3-2
George Izo in his only year in 1960 went 1-0
So as you can see the Franchise as a whole doesnt do a whole lot of winning. Given also the fact that the two Qb's in the set already have losing records.
Neil Lomax playoff record with the Cardinals 0-1 but based on statistics is worthly of the all-time cardinal set after playing with them for 8 years
Jim Hart owns most of the Cardinals passing records, in my opinion out attrition more than anything, playoff record with Cardinals 0-2 after a 16 year career
Kurt Warner’s playoff record with Cardinals 4-2, with the only Super Bowl appearance in a 5 year career.
So he may not make it in on statistics but he as a quarterback meant more to that franchise then Neil Lomax or Jim Hart.
Just My Opinion
Rob
Looking for:
Heisman Rookies
Heisman Collection set singles
Eddie George PSA rookies
<< <i>
I will admit first of all that I am a Cardinal fan so I may be bias. I feel Kurt would be a welcomed addition to the All-Time Cardinal set. There is no denying he had a short career with the Cardinals and yes he had a losing record as a starter. But if you dig into that stat a little bit you will find that only 5 Cardinals QB's have winning records and yes that is all-time they are as follows;
Charley Johnson from 1961-1969 went 36-28-5
Jay Schroeder in his only year in 1994 went 5-3
Frank Tripueka in his only year in 1950 went 3-2
Ralph Guglielmi in his only year in 1961 went 3-2
George Izo in his only year in 1960 went 1-0
So as you can see the Franchise as a whole doesnt do a whole lot of winning. Given also the fact that the two Qb's in the set already have losing records.
Neil Lomax playoff record with the Cardinals 0-1 but based on statistics is worthly of the all-time cardinal set after playing with them for 8 years
Jim Hart owns most of the Cardinals passing records, in my opinion out attrition more than anything, playoff record with Cardinals 0-2 after a 16 year career
Kurt Warner�s playoff record with Cardinals 4-2, with the only Super Bowl appearance in a 5 year career.
So he may not make it in on statistics but he as a quarterback meant more to that franchise then Neil Lomax or Jim Hart.
Just My Opinion
Rob >>
If playoff wins trump: Seasons spent/games started with team, career statistics with team
Then yes add Kurt Warner to the Cardinals....Along with about 150 other players to multiple All-Time Team Sets...I listed 8 QB's ALONE in my last post, who at a minimum, match Kurt Warner's Cardinals career with those prospective teams. Some of them even WON the Super Bowl and/or were Super Bowl MVPs for that franchise. So hey, open the flood gates even further then they already had been. Just make the All-Time sets a roster of every player who ever donned that teams uniform. lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I will admit first of all that I am a Cardinal fan so I may be bias. I feel Kurt would be a welcomed addition to the All-Time Cardinal set. There is no denying he had a short career with the Cardinals and yes he had a losing record as a starter. But if you dig into that stat a little bit you will find that only 5 Cardinals QB's have winning records and yes that is all-time they are as follows;
Charley Johnson from 1961-1969 went 36-28-5
Jay Schroeder in his only year in 1994 went 5-3
Frank Tripueka in his only year in 1950 went 3-2
Ralph Guglielmi in his only year in 1961 went 3-2
George Izo in his only year in 1960 went 1-0
So as you can see the Franchise as a whole doesnt do a whole lot of winning. Given also the fact that the two Qb's in the set already have losing records.
Neil Lomax playoff record with the Cardinals 0-1 but based on statistics is worthly of the all-time cardinal set after playing with them for 8 years
Jim Hart owns most of the Cardinals passing records, in my opinion out attrition more than anything, playoff record with Cardinals 0-2 after a 16 year career
Kurt Warner�s playoff record with Cardinals 4-2, with the only Super Bowl appearance in a 5 year career.
So he may not make it in on statistics but he as a quarterback meant more to that franchise then Neil Lomax or Jim Hart.
Just My Opinion
Rob >>
If playoff wins trump: Seasons spent/games started with team, career statistics with team
Then yes add Kurt Warner to the Cardinals....Along with about 150 other players to multiple All-Time Team Sets...I listed 8 QB's ALONE in my last post, who at a minimum, match Kurt Warner's Cardinals career with those prospective teams. Some of them even WON the Super Bowl and/or were Super Bowl MVPs for that franchise. So hey, open the flood gates even further then they already had been. Just make the All-Time sets a roster of every player who ever donned that teams uniform. lol
Jason >>
well we have been over this before. but request him if you wish. some of us feel that many of these sets are becoming watered down or should not even exist yet. hence the comment from jason about adding everyone that has ever played for a team.
i like how restrictive the All Time Packers set is. there a maybe two players that dont belong in the set (and those are border line..Max McGee and Fuzzy Thurston). sharpe and green may not make the hof but they set career marks and at their high points of their careers were quite dominant. just look at the latest nfl.com video on HOF snubbs...as dukes says if it wasnt for the neck injury and that sharpe didnt like the media (which dukes stressed even more) he would probably be in the HOF already.
i am sure one could make the argument about lynn dickey belonging in the set as well. but he hasnt even come up for a vote.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Just a thought about All-Time Team sets: I can think of one guy who essentially played no more than 5 years for each of 2 different teams, yet belongs on each of their All-Time Teams: Kurt Warner.
Nick >>
Warner played 6 seasons for the Rams, 3 Pro Bowls, 2-time first Team All-Pro, and a Super Bowl MVP award. I could buy him as an All-Time Ram....But For the Cards? 5 years, 1 Pro Bowl and a Super Bowl loss? Nope, sorry. Look at the history of the Cardinals and tell me how Warner is one of the top 24 players to ever done a Cardinals jersey...With such a short Cardinals career, and a losing record as a Cardinals QB, are you telling me the one Super Bowl appearance alone qualifies him as an all-time great? I just don't understand this line of thinking.
Jason >>
I will admit first of all that I am a Cardinal fan so I may be bias. I feel Kurt would be a welcomed addition to the All-Time Cardinal set. There is no denying he had a short career with the Cardinals and yes he had a losing record as a starter. But if you dig into that stat a little bit you will find that only 5 Cardinals QB's have winning records and yes that is all-time they are as follows;
Charley Johnson from 1961-1969 went 36-28-5
Jay Schroeder in his only year in 1994 went 5-3
Frank Tripueka in his only year in 1950 went 3-2
Ralph Guglielmi in his only year in 1961 went 3-2
George Izo in his only year in 1960 went 1-0
So as you can see the Franchise as a whole doesnt do a whole lot of winning. Given also the fact that the two Qb's in the set already have losing records.
Neil Lomax playoff record with the Cardinals 0-1 but based on statistics is worthly of the all-time cardinal set after playing with them for 8 years
Jim Hart owns most of the Cardinals passing records, in my opinion out attrition more than anything, playoff record with Cardinals 0-2 after a 16 year career
Kurt Warner’s playoff record with Cardinals 4-2, with the only Super Bowl appearance in a 5 year career.
So he may not make it in on statistics but he as a quarterback meant more to that franchise then Neil Lomax or Jim Hart.
Just My Opinion
Rob >>
I'm only doing one of the All Time Team Sets but I've always felt the fans that actually follow their chosen teams should have the loudest voice b/c they usually know their team the best.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
I'm only doing one of the All Time Team Sets but I've always felt the fans that actually follow their chosen teams should have the loudest voice b/c they usually know their team the best. >>
Actually I believe the opposite. FANS of a team typically can't get rid of the rose colored glasses. This also affects the common fan and the stats based fan who have only seen or remember CURRENT players and tend to rank them higher and think they are better than the old timers, simply based on lack of information.
An OBJECTIVE viewpoint is really the only way to get a true snapshot. Especially in today's world, I can watch and/or follow any team/player in the league as if they were playing right down the street.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
1. It's the Cardinals. They did not have a history of success or a tradition of winning prior to Warner, so you don't have guys like Bradshaw, Fouts, Staubach, Sammy Baugh and Y.A. Tittle to compare him to, as those other QBs on Jason's list do. If Warner had played for a franchise with a more storied history, I would say that he's not worthy of inclusion in the All-time (Steelers, Cowboys, Packers, etc.). When determining an all-time team, it's all relative to that team.
Considering that....
2. I believe that when you look back on Warner's Cardinals career in 5-10 years, you will point to his last 2 years as a turning point for the franchise. That kind of impact deserves recognition.
3. Warner will likely make the HOF (we've included him as a Modern Future). As such, and adding in his impact on the franchise as stated above, I anticipate that he will be inducted into the Ring of Honor at UOP, a symbol of his impact on the Cardinals franchise as an all-time Cardinal.
4. You can't judge today's longevity with a team vs. those in the pre-free agency era. It's going to be increasingly common to have players with a team for 4-6 years then leave for big free agent dollars elsewhere. Are we going to judge great, short careers on a lower scale than someone who plays for a team 8-10 years but is mediocre? I'm not saying Warner had 5 great years with the Cards, but this is going to be an issue going forward for these sets.
5. I don't think Warner as a Cardinal is any worse than some other members of other all-time sets (Rich Gannon an all-time Raider, Duante Culpepper an all-time Viking, etc.) At least Warner is a future HOFer whose HOF resume depends in large part on his time with the Cardinals. I don't think he would have a shot if not for what he did for that franchise his last 2 years.
Thank you for your time, and............GO CARDINALS!!! Ready for our sig line bet this year, Joe?
Jasen
<< <i>
5. I don't think Warner as a Cardinal is any worse than some other members of other all-time sets (Rich Gannon an all-time Raider, Duante Culpepper an all-time Viking, etc.)
>>
AMEN TO THAT! And for me, that is the most glaring reason not to add ever guy who plays 4-5 good seasons for a franchise to that franchise's all-time team set...2 (or 3) wrongs don't make a right.
I like these points from Jasen however, in fact, probably the best pro Warner/Cards set argument I've seen so far...
I still personally think much of the pro-inclusion has to do with the new-ness of it. How about give it those 5-10 years Jasen speaks of and THEN look back and see you think Warner is still deserving. If Matt Leinhart wins 3 Super Bowls in the next 10 years with the Cards, no one will remember that Warner ever even played for them...lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I'm only doing one of the All Time Team Sets but I've always felt the fans that actually follow their chosen teams should have the loudest voice b/c they usually know their team the best. >>
Actually I believe the opposite. FANS of a team typically can't get rid of the rose colored glasses. This also affects the common fan and the stats based fan who have only seen or remember CURRENT players and tend to rank them higher and think they are better than the old timers, simply based on lack of information.
An OBJECTIVE viewpoint is really the only way to get a true snapshot. Especially in today's world, I can watch and/or follow any team/player in the league as if they were playing right down the street.
Jason >>
I don't mind the rose colored glasses and actually want to see choices from the heart appear in the All Time Team Sets. IMO save the rigidity for the HOF set. I see the the All Time Teams sets as ones that should be set-up for the fans. I do agree that former players should not be forgotten or ranked lower b/c the fans are uninformed.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I'm only doing one of the All Time Team Sets but I've always felt the fans that actually follow their chosen teams should have the loudest voice b/c they usually know their team the best. >>
Actually I believe the opposite. FANS of a team typically can't get rid of the rose colored glasses. This also affects the common fan and the stats based fan who have only seen or remember CURRENT players and tend to rank them higher and think they are better than the old timers, simply based on lack of information.
An OBJECTIVE viewpoint is really the only way to get a true snapshot. Especially in today's world, I can watch and/or follow any team/player in the league as if they were playing right down the street.
Jason >>
as a packer fan i would agree that fans have rose colored glasses. i think in some respects it is better to have some outside confirmation from other football fans.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
I'm only doing one of the All Time Team Sets but I've always felt the fans that actually follow their chosen teams should have the loudest voice b/c they usually know their team the best. >>
Actually I believe the opposite. FANS of a team typically can't get rid of the rose colored glasses. This also affects the common fan and the stats based fan who have only seen or remember CURRENT players and tend to rank them higher and think they are better than the old timers, simply based on lack of information.
An OBJECTIVE viewpoint is really the only way to get a true snapshot. Especially in today's world, I can watch and/or follow any team/player in the league as if they were playing right down the street.
Jason >>
as a packer fan i would agree that fans have rose colored glasses. i think in some respects it is better to have some outside confirmation from other football fans. >>
I agree that outsiders should be involved as well, but I do feel that the All Time Sets are the perfect place for fan favorites and guys that would fall into the Hall of Good category.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>If Matt Leinhart wins 3 Super Bowls in the next 10 years with the Cards >>
Um, Jason...what do you mean "if"????
Jasen
maybe emmitt smith should go in as well. he might have been their best running back in 20 years.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
How on earth is Bob Brown on the all time raider team.
3 years played...only 1 pro bowl?
His best years were already behind him.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>As a raider fan...I would have to ask.
How on earth is Bob Brown on the all time raider team.
3 years played...only 1 pro bowl?
His best years were already behind him. >>
Jay, I agree with you 150%. He should never have been added. But unfortunately, at some point someone requested a bunch of additions to that Raiders set who honestly do not belong. And apparently, they all got majority votes and got added. It's the reason I no longer collect any key card sets. The common sense of it went out the window, and instead these sets became exactly what dfr52 wanted them to become. And that is a place for fan favorites, without regard for "time in service" to the franchise, nor any weight placed on PROVEN, FACTUAL accomplishments. Simply guys that a few fans of the team liked. Kinda like the Baseball All-Star Game. Instead of the MOST DESERVING players being the starters, you get 100% who the fans vote for. And it usually ends up being majority players who's teams promote stuffing the ballot box. Texas is one of them, as I live 15 minutes from the stadium and cringe everytime they tell the stadium full of fans to vote early and often for all their favorite Rangers, with no mention of actually selecting the best qualified players.
This diminishes the value and/or stature of the team just like it diminishes the All-Time Team Sets IMO. As the guy who requested the addition of many of these sets, I can tell you the goal was NOT to have them be a free for all to add every Joe Delaney or Pat Tillman fan favorite type guy. But rather a place to have rookie HOFers, future HOFers AND top notch, borderline HOF/Hall of Very Good type guys of each team all in one place together. But, it seems as if that is now the minority opinion, as most of the all-time team sets now harbor at least a guy or 2 who doesn't meet the time in service or proven, recognized accomplishments necessary to be logically considered an "All-Time" great of that franchise.
It's sad, but hey the world is a changing. And we only have the voting public to blame!
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>As a raider fan...I would have to ask.
How on earth is Bob Brown on the all time raider team.
3 years played...only 1 pro bowl?
His best years were already behind him. >>
Jay, I agree with you 150%. He should never have been added. But unfortunately, at some point someone requested a bunch of additions to that Raiders set who honestly do not belong. And apparently, they all got majority votes and got added. It's the reason I no longer collect any key card sets. The common sense of it went out the window, and instead these sets became exactly what dfr52 wanted them to become. And that is a place for fan favorites, without regard for "time in service" to the franchise, nor any weight placed on PROVEN, FACTUAL accomplishments. Simply guys that a few fans of the team liked. Kinda like the Baseball All-Star Game. Instead of the MOST DESERVING players being the starters, you get 100% who the fans vote for. And it usually ends up being majority players who's teams promote stuffing the ballot box. Texas is one of them, as I live 15 minutes from the stadium and cringe everytime they tell the stadium full of fans to vote early and often for all their favorite Rangers, with no mention of actually selecting the best qualified players.
This diminishes the value and/or stature of the team just like it diminishes the All-Time Team Sets IMO. As the guy who requested the addition of many of these sets, I can tell you the goal was NOT to have them be a free for all to add every Joe Delaney or Pat Tillman fan favorite type guy. But rather a place to have rookie HOFers, future HOFers AND top notch, borderline HOF/Hall of Very Good type guys of each team all in one place together. But, it seems as if that is now the minority opinion, as most of the all-time team sets now harbor at least a guy or 2 who doesn't meet the time in service or proven, recognized accomplishments necessary to be logically considered an "All-Time" great of that franchise.
It's sad, but hey the world is a changing. And we only have the voting public to blame!
Jason >>
Jason,
We are doing are best with the Packers set. Though McGee and Fuzzy are borderline, they played key roles (and a long time) for the Packers of the 60's which happens to be one of the most dominant teams in NFL history. A look through the records books actually puts McGee up there with Hutson and Sharpe in most categories. And the OG of the Packers were the key to the dominant running game they had. I havent heard on the vote turned out for the additions of D. Robinson, Donald Drivier and Bill Howton have gone.
Jay
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
<< <i>
Warner had a losing record with the Cardinals. So did Neil Lomax and Jim Hart. The last starting QB to have a winning record with them was Charley Johnson, in the 1960s.
Nick >>
Jim Hart-180 games started as Cardinals QB....18 seasons with the team....34,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Neil Lomax-101 games started as Cardinals QB....8 seasons with the team....22,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Kurt Warner-57 games started as Cardinals QB....5 seasons with the team....15,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Lomax (IMO) is a questionable choice to begin with, and Warner can't even match those stats....So what he took a team to a Super Bowl loss...If he's worthy, then you guys need to add these QB's to these respective team sets (thank goodness I got out of the Key Card Sets...Some of these opinions on certain players just boggle my mind...lol)
Craig Morton-Cowboys AND Broncos
Billy Kilmer- Redskins
Doug Williams- Redskins
Mark Rypien- Redskins
Stan Humphries- Chargers
Neil O'Donnell-Steelers
Eli Manning- Giants
Chris Chandler-Falcons
All match or exceed Warner's production in Arizona based on your standards. I mean, there are worse (more questionable) players on other sets, so hey request it and let the Cardinals collectors decide.
Jason >>
Other than possibly Chandler (whose team has several decades less of history than the Cardinals), no they don't. Prior to Warner, the Cardinals had 2 total playoff wins in team history. He won 4 playoff games and took the team to their only Super Bowl. Warner can legitimately be called the greatest QB in Cardinals team history. Of the trio of Warner, Lomax, and Hart, which one would you want starting for you in a big game? Or would you say that there should be no QB on the All-Time Great Cardinals registry set?
Other than Chandler, everyone else on your list was someone who QBed a team that has a long record of success under other QBs (in San DIego's case, primarily regular season success, but with what were at the time NFL major single-season records to go with it).
It takes a lot more to be an all-time great Cowboy, Redskin, Steeler, or Packer than it does to be an all-time great Cardinal.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Warner had a losing record with the Cardinals. So did Neil Lomax and Jim Hart. The last starting QB to have a winning record with them was Charley Johnson, in the 1960s.
Nick >>
Jim Hart-180 games started as Cardinals QB....18 seasons with the team....34,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Neil Lomax-101 games started as Cardinals QB....8 seasons with the team....22,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Kurt Warner-57 games started as Cardinals QB....5 seasons with the team....15,000+ yards as a Cardinal....
Lomax (IMO) is a questionable choice to begin with, and Warner can't even match those stats....So what he took a team to a Super Bowl loss...If he's worthy, then you guys need to add these QB's to these respective team sets (thank goodness I got out of the Key Card Sets...Some of these opinions on certain players just boggle my mind...lol)
Craig Morton-Cowboys AND Broncos
Billy Kilmer- Redskins
Doug Williams- Redskins
Mark Rypien- Redskins
Stan Humphries- Chargers
Neil O'Donnell-Steelers
Eli Manning- Giants
Chris Chandler-Falcons
All match or exceed Warner's production in Arizona based on your standards. I mean, there are worse (more questionable) players on other sets, so hey request it and let the Cardinals collectors decide.
Jason >>
Other than possibly Chandler (whose team has several decades less of history than the Cardinals), no they don't. Prior to Warner, the Cardinals had 2 total playoff wins in team history. He won 4 playoff games and took the team to their only Super Bowl. Warner can legitimately be called the greatest QB in Cardinals team history. Of the trio of Warner, Lomax, and Hart, which one would you want starting for you in a big game? Or would you say that there should be no QB on the All-Time Great Cardinals registry set?
Other than Chandler, everyone else on your list was someone who QBed a team that has a long record of success under other QBs (in San DIego's case, primarily regular season success, but with what were at the time NFL major single-season records to go with it).
It takes a lot more to be an all-time great Cowboy, Redskin, Steeler, or Packer than it does to be an all-time great Cardinal.
Nick >>
i dont understand why the different levels of greatness are required. by your implication you are saying that anyone on the Cowboy, Redskin, Steeler or Packer All Time team is far greater than anyone on the all time Cardinal Team set. i dont agree. i think it should be hard for all teams. if that means there are only 2-3 All Time players currently for a team so be it.
maybe its too restrictive, but then start another set. that is what we Packer fans did. we started the Packer HOF set to let fans collect players that arent quite at that high level but yet still played key roles for the team. does a gilbert brown measure up to a willie davis/henry jordan or reggie white, heck no, but he did play a key role for the teams of the 90's. same with an antonio freeman.
since these sets are now set it stone with players not being allowed to be removed, what happens if the cardinals do better under lienart than warner?
right now the packers set has two qb's (would be 3 but herber doesnt have a real rookie card). before favre one could have made the argument for either dickey or majik to be next to starr. but in retrospect now that would have looked really foolish. why cant people wait a bit first and let the dust settle for awhile. as i said before i will always think of warner as an all time ram not cardinal. i am sure people would like to see vick removed from the all time falcons set. miller did more than vick did for the team.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Do you want a situation where the All-Time Great Steelers, Packers, and Bears sets are 3 or 4 times as large as the All-Time Great Cardinals set and several positions, including QB, go completely unrepresented on the Cardinals set? Because that's what the restrictive position on who should be in ATG sets would lead to (at least if it had been adopted before some guys who wouldn't make the other sets were already put in the Cardinals set).
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>The Cardinals have had a long history (mostly lousy). They're not an expansion club. The last time they won a NFL Championship, their biggest star was Charley Trippi, Harry Truman was President, and Richard Nixon was a freshman member of the House of Representatives. [The time before that, there were no playoffs and teams could make their own schedules.]
Do you want a situation where the All-Time Great Steelers, Packers, and Bears sets are 3 or 4 times as large as the All-Time Great Cardinals set and several positions, including QB, go completely unrepresented on the Cardinals set? Because that's what the restrictive position on who should be in ATG sets would lead to (at least if it had been adopted before some guys who wouldn't make the other sets were already put in the Cardinals set).
Nick >>
Well right now they are actually even. Packers set has 23 and Cards have 23. Dont guite see how you could say that they are even. Packers have 12 championships to the one or two for the Cardinals. Packers have 21 HOFers with another 5 having limited service with the Packers. Cards have 11 and 6 respectively.
As I said what i would prefer, more restrictive sets. As such i dont collect any of the other all time team sets. Just look at the numbers below for each team already.
49ers 19
Bears 72
Bengals 17
Bills 19
Broncos 20
Browns 39
Bucs 16
Cards 23
Chargers 27
Chiefs 33
Colts 22
Cowboys 28
Dolphins 24
Eagles 21
Falcons 21
Giants 22
Jets 17
Lions 22
Oilers/Titans 21
Packers 23
Pats 26
Raiders 39
Rams 32
Ravens 10
Redskins 25
Saints 18
Seahawks 16
Steelers 27
Vikings 27
So there already is the problem you suggested would happen with my method but with what is happening the way things are now.
So if we need everything to be "equal" (sounds very PC) whom should be the QB's for the Ravens, Bucs and Falcons?
Ravens dont have one (but Dilfer did win a SB and some playoff games)
Bucs..right now its D. Williams and Vinny (but Brad Johnson won a SB and most of the teams playoff games)
Falcons...its Vick (yet Miller took them to the SB)
The sets say the all time great players for the team...not for each position or that there has to be at least one player for each position.
If you look at the sets with the most collectors they tend to reflect that more restrictive sets are more popular. Packers have 33, Steelers have 35, Cowboys have 23, Niners have 22, Dolphins have 21. You might say well those are the popular teams. I say the Bears are pretty popular with a strong fan base, yet they only have 6 collectors for the massive 72 card set. Where some of the sets go off base is the rush to add young players. Even with the Steelers you have to wonder about how Big Ben and even Polamalu (with his injuries) are going to play out at the end of their careers. I think players need to be well established with that team or even retired before being added. But again those are just my 2 cents.
The registry is for the masses. I only take part in sets that I like. I even collect my own PSA sets that arent up...why because I dont think that either many would collect it or its not that interesting to many people. Yes I have my Favre ticket sets but I requested those more the uniquness of the sets and his streak (ie they do have something to do with the history of the NFL). My set of autos of players that have caught a TD from Favre on the other hand isnt up anywhere but in my showcase and I havent even updated that online in awhile. If the masses want some set its up to them...actually its not even the masses, one person is all that is required to request a set.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
Jason,
We are doing are best with the Packers set. Though McGee and Fuzzy are borderline, they played key roles (and a long time) for the Packers of the 60's which happens to be one of the most dominant teams in NFL history. A look through the records books actually puts McGee up there with Hutson and Sharpe in most categories. And the OG of the Packers were the key to the dominant running game they had. I havent heard on the vote turned out for the additions of D. Robinson, Donald Drivier and Bill Howton have gone.
Jay >>
Yes you have. And typically the sets with 20+ collectors can police themselves as they have a large enough composite opinion to be able to do so. Honestly, I have no problem with any additions to sets with 20+ collectors for that reason. The problem is mainly the smaller sets, in which only a few votes can affect an addition or denial.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
It takes a lot more to be an all-time great Cowboy, Redskin, Steeler, or Packer than it does to be an all-time great Cardinal.
Nick >>
And THAT IMO is a HUGE mistake, to look at that way. Because these sets are not just for the NOW. The hope should be that these sets remain LONG TERM, and 20 years from now, the Cardinals may have a much brighter history under their belt. My point being that the standards for additions to team sets SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR EACH TEAM. Just because one team is crappy, or only has a 10 year history, we should lower the standards? That really does not bode well for the long term health of the sets. Because what you are proposing means that the standards could change every year simply based on the success of the franchise.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
Do you want a situation where the All-Time Great Steelers, Packers, and Bears sets are 3 or 4 times as large as the All-Time Great Cardinals set and several positions, including QB, go completely unrepresented on the Cardinals set? Because that's what the restrictive position on who should be in ATG sets would lead to (at least if it had been adopted before some guys who wouldn't make the other sets were already put in the Cardinals set).
Nick >>
Yes, I absolutely would like to see that. Also, Jim Hart did FAR AND AWAY enough to be added to franchise All-Time set IMO. Just because a guy doesn't win playoff games doesn't mean his career was meaningless or worthless. DO some research on Hart, he was a GREAT QB. Lomax, borderline and I could go either way....But Jim Hart belongs on the set.
No I don;t think every set has to have a QB. Who cares if Byron Leftwich is the greatest QB in team history, he's not an all-timer....
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
So there already is the problem you suggested would happen with my method but with what is happening the way things are now.
So if we need everything to be "equal" (sounds very PC) whom should be the QB's for the Ravens, Bucs and Falcons?
Ravens dont have one (but Dilfer did win a SB and some playoff games)
Bucs..right now its D. Williams and Vinny (but Brad Johnson won a SB and most of the teams playoff games)
Falcons...its Vick (yet Miller took them to the SB)
The sets say the all time great players for the team...not for each position or that there has to be at least one player for each position.
If you look at the sets with the most collectors they tend to reflect that more restrictive sets are more popular. Packers have 33, Steelers have 35, Cowboys have 23, Niners have 22, Dolphins have 21. You might say well those are the popular teams. I say the Bears are pretty popular with a strong fan base, yet they only have 6 collectors for the massive 72 card set. Where some of the sets go off base is the rush to add young players. Even with the Steelers you have to wonder about how Big Ben and even Polamalu (with his injuries) are going to play out at the end of their careers. I think players need to be well established with that team or even retired before being added. But again those are just my 2 cents.
The registry is for the masses. I only take part in sets that I like. I even collect my own PSA sets that arent up...why because I dont think that either many would collect it or its not that interesting to many people. Yes I have my Favre ticket sets but I requested those more the uniquness of the sets and his streak (ie they do have something to do with the history of the NFL). My set of autos of players that have caught a TD from Favre on the other hand isnt up anywhere but in my showcase and I havent even updated that online in awhile. If the masses want some set its up to them...actually its not even the masses, one person is all that is required to request a set. >>
WOW, jradke4 for President! Standing ovation from this side of the isle for this post. I've never seen it stated any better or more clearly.
Bravo,
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Do you want a situation where the All-Time Great Steelers, Packers, and Bears sets are 3 or 4 times as large as the All-Time Great Cardinals set and several positions, including QB, go completely unrepresented on the Cardinals set? Because that's what the restrictive position on who should be in ATG sets would lead to (at least if it had been adopted before some guys who wouldn't make the other sets were already put in the Cardinals set).
Nick >>
Yes, I absolutely would like to see that. Also, Jim Hart did FAR AND AWAY enough to be added to franchise All-Time set IMO. Just because a guy doesn't win playoff games doesn't mean his career was meaningless or worthless. DO some research on Hart, he was a GREAT QB. Lomax, borderline and I could go either way....But Jim Hart belongs on the set.
No I don;t think every set has to have a QB. Who cares if Byron Leftwich is the greatest QB in team history, he's not an all-timer.... >>
It's pointless to talk about All-Timers on a team that has been around less than 20 years, but the Cardinals are not an expansion team.
Jim Hart was durable and good at avoiding sacks, but completing barely half your passes in the '70s with more INTs than TDs while racking up lots of attempts and yards, and NEVER winning a playoff game is just not a stellar resume to be an all-time great for any team. The Cardinals were also among the worst offenses in the league for many of those years. As far as his accolades, one of his Pro Bowl seasons (as well as the year he was named 2nd team All-Pro) came in a year when he wasn't even in the top 10 in the league in yards per attempt or yards per completion. Hart was a poor man's Dave Krieg; not a dominant QB.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>
It's pointless to talk about All-Timers on a team that has been around less than 20 years, but the Cardinals are not an expansion team.
Jim Hart was durable and good at avoiding sacks, but completing barely half your passes in the '70s with more INTs than TDs while racking up lots of attempts and yards, and NEVER winning a playoff game is just not a stellar resume to be an all-time great for any team. The Cardinals were also among the worst offenses in the league for many of those years. As far as his accolades, one of his Pro Bowl seasons (as well as the year he was named 2nd team All-Pro) came in a year when he wasn't even in the top 10 in the league in yards per attempt or yards per completion. Hart was a poor man's Dave Krieg; not a dominant QB.
Nick >>
Incorrect on almost every account.
---All-timers on a team around less than 20 years????
So you're telling me that Johnny Unitas was not an all-timer for the Colts? Is Steve Largent not an all-timer??? That makes zero sense. If you apply the same standards to the necessary accolades for being included in any all-time team set, then it DOES NOT MATTER what the accomplishments of the franchise are. And it shouldn't matter if the Cardinals were crappy for 50 years prior to Warner. Or that the Packers were the Team of the 60's...Use the same logic for every team and every franchise.
---Jim Hart....
Honestly, based on your write up of him, I can not imagine that you have even watched any football from the 70s. Barely completing half your passes...More INTs than TD...These are the NORM for QBs in the 70s..He was the starting QB for the franchise for FIFTEEN YEARS!!!! From 1973-1977, under Coach Don Coryell, the Cardinals were one of the top offenses in the NFL and the passing game was consistently among the leagues best. Not surprisingly, all 4 of Jim Hart's Pro Bowl appearances came during those years. 180 games as the starting QB of ANY franchise is deserving of being placed on that all-time team.
No one ever said he was a DOMINANT QB, and no one ever said you have to be a DOMINANT, HOF QB to be a part of the all-time sets. What has been said is that there should be some sort of standards and/or requirements. Time in service of the franchise, individual accolades (Pro Bowls, All-Pros, stats, etc) being #1 and #2, with playoff and Super Bowl being tie breaker type issues for borderline guys.
This is my final word on this issue. I no longer collect these sets, but I am still passionate about the issue. Jay honestly said it all, if that doesn't make sense or seem logical to you, then we will just have to agree to disagree. If you want every 5 year player added to these teams, then BY ALL MEANS send the request to PSA. Most of the key card sets are FUBAR already anyway. lolol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Hart's stats were around the norm for QBs of the era - not around the norm for the top QBs (Dawson, Tarkenton, Anderson, Staubach, Griese, etc.).
Year after year, if you look at where he fell on leaderboards, he ranked higher in pass attempts than he did in yards or TDs. That's not a mark of greatness in any era.
Other than the Coryell years, the Cardinals franchise was consistently downright lousy with Hart as the QB - and when Coryell left, Hart immediately stopped being a Pro Bowl QB - and Coryell's new franchise was #1 in passing yards 7 of the next 8 years (and #2 in the 8th, which was Marino's single-season yard record season).
Hart was an average QB who was lucky enough to be paired with maybe the greatest offensive coach in football history for several seasons. Before that, he did nothing noteworthy. After that, he did nothing noteworthy.
The only reason he held a starting job for any length of time is that the Bidwill brothers were too cheap to actually recruit or pay for football talent.
Despite all your claims of being against dilution of sets, inflating the importance of longevity itself dilutes sets.
Coming up with straw men like suggesting that other people want every 5 year player to be added makes it hard to take the rest of your argument seriously.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>The argument on Unitas and Largent is just silly. They were all-time great players for NFL history, regardless of what franchise or franchises they were with. That's not an argument for picking All-Time teams when there are players in the league with more longevity than the franchise has. >>
Unitas and Largent were both all-time great players for teams who were brand new to the league at the time (Colts and Seahawks0
<< <i>Hart's stats were around the norm for QBs of the era - not around the norm for the top QBs (Dawson, Tarkenton, Anderson, Staubach, Griese, etc.).
Year after year, if you look at where he fell on leaderboards, he ranked higher in pass attempts than he did in yards or TDs. That's not a mark of greatness in any era.
Other than the Coryell years, the Cardinals franchise was consistently downright lousy with Hart as the QB - and when Coryell left, Hart immediately stopped being a Pro Bowl QB - and Coryell's new franchise was #1 in passing yards 7 of the next 8 years (and #2 in the 8th, which was Marino's single-season yard record season).
Hart was an average QB who was lucky enough to be paired with maybe the greatest offensive coach in football history for several seasons. Before that, he did nothing noteworthy. After that, he did nothing noteworthy.
The only reason he held a starting job for any length of time is that the Bidwill brothers were too cheap to actually recruit or pay for football talent.
Despite all your claims of being against dilution of sets, inflating the importance of longevity itself dilutes sets.
Coming up with straw men like suggesting that other people want every 5 year player to be added makes it hard to take the rest of your argument seriously.
Nick >>
OK, so I'm trying to understand exactly what you are actually debating here. That Jim Hart was not HOF caliber and hence doesn't deserve to be on the Cardinals set? So you are saying only HOF caliber players should be on these sets and not any very good players?
Are you also saying that starting 180 games as a franchises QB over an 18 year period doesn't constitute addition to the all-time team sets? Yet Warner belongs simply because he took a once terrible franchise to a Super Bowl? Even though he only played for them 5 years, went to one Pro Bowl and started 57 games for them?
Just wanting to clarify that the above is really your stance. Maybe I'm mis-reading you because to me these things contradict each other as one is an EXCLUSIVE view and one is INCLUSIVE. You can't have it both ways because once you start adding (or not adding) certain guys with specific resumes, it sets a PRECEDENT. This is exactly what ended up ruining most of these sets. One card or one player was allowed in one set. So new collector comes along, sees this and figures his guy, with similar resume should be added (or not added) to the set he cares about.
Pick your side and stick with it man...lolol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>The argument on Unitas and Largent is just silly. They were all-time great players for NFL history, regardless of what franchise or franchises they were with. That's not an argument for picking All-Time teams when there are players in the league with more longevity than the franchise has.
Hart's stats were around the norm for QBs of the era - not around the norm for the top QBs (Dawson, Tarkenton, Anderson, Staubach, Griese, etc.).
Year after year, if you look at where he fell on leaderboards, he ranked higher in pass attempts than he did in yards or TDs. That's not a mark of greatness in any era.
Other than the Coryell years, the Cardinals franchise was consistently downright lousy with Hart as the QB - and when Coryell left, Hart immediately stopped being a Pro Bowl QB - and Coryell's new franchise was #1 in passing yards 7 of the next 8 years (and #2 in the 8th, which was Marino's single-season yard record season).
Hart was an average QB who was lucky enough to be paired with maybe the greatest offensive coach in football history for several seasons. Before that, he did nothing noteworthy. After that, he did nothing noteworthy.
The only reason he held a starting job for any length of time is that the Bidwill brothers were too cheap to actually recruit or pay for football talent.
Despite all your claims of being against dilution of sets, inflating the importance of longevity itself dilutes sets.
Coming up with straw men like suggesting that other people want every 5 year player to be added makes it hard to take the rest of your argument seriously.
Nick >>
well no franchise has more longevity than the Cardinals.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>This is a little off topic, but why is Hornung part of the All Time Rushers Set? I tried to answer my own question but could not figure out why he is included in the set. >>
its that he is in the HOF as a running back. i think that would be enough to make you an all time rusher. though his election to the HOF wasnt only due to his rushing skills. he was an all around player (rusher, receiver, kicker and even a passer). he was also a scoring machine...and points are what win games.
right now current players need, i think, over 10,000 yards to be added. nearly all current HOF running backs are at 10,000+ yards. those that are, the more recent players (ie 16 game season players). here are those that are over 10,000.
E Smith
Payton
Sanders
Dickerson
Dorsett
Brown
Allen
Harris
Thomas
Riggins
OJ
Everyone else is under 10,000 yards.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
<< <i>This is a little off topic, but why is Hornung part of the All Time Rushers Set? I tried to answer my own question but could not figure out why he is included in the set. >>
its that he is in the HOF as a running back. i think that would be enough to make you an all time rusher. though his election to the HOF wasnt only due to his rushing skills. he was an all around player (rusher, receiver, kicker and even a passer). he was also a scoring machine...and points are what win games.
right now current players need, i think, over 10,000 yards to be added. nearly all current HOF running backs are at 10,000+ yards. those that are, the more recent players (ie 16 game season players). here are those that are over 10,000.
E Smith
Payton
Sanders
Dickerson
Dorsett
Brown
Allen
Harris
Thomas
Riggins
OJ
Everyone else is under 10,000 yards. >>
Ok, then why aren't Matson, McElhenny, J.H. Johnson, or Kelly in the set if Hornung, Csonka, Taylor, and Campbell are included?
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
<< <i>The argument on Unitas and Largent is just silly. They were all-time great players for NFL history, regardless of what franchise or franchises they were with. That's not an argument for picking All-Time teams when there are players in the league with more longevity than the franchise has. >>
Unitas and Largent were both all-time great players for teams who were brand new to the league at the time (Colts and Seahawks0
<< <i>Hart's stats were around the norm for QBs of the era - not around the norm for the top QBs (Dawson, Tarkenton, Anderson, Staubach, Griese, etc.).
Year after year, if you look at where he fell on leaderboards, he ranked higher in pass attempts than he did in yards or TDs. That's not a mark of greatness in any era.
Other than the Coryell years, the Cardinals franchise was consistently downright lousy with Hart as the QB - and when Coryell left, Hart immediately stopped being a Pro Bowl QB - and Coryell's new franchise was #1 in passing yards 7 of the next 8 years (and #2 in the 8th, which was Marino's single-season yard record season).
Hart was an average QB who was lucky enough to be paired with maybe the greatest offensive coach in football history for several seasons. Before that, he did nothing noteworthy. After that, he did nothing noteworthy.
The only reason he held a starting job for any length of time is that the Bidwill brothers were too cheap to actually recruit or pay for football talent.
Despite all your claims of being against dilution of sets, inflating the importance of longevity itself dilutes sets.
Coming up with straw men like suggesting that other people want every 5 year player to be added makes it hard to take the rest of your argument seriously.
Nick >>
OK, so I'm trying to understand exactly what you are actually debating here. That Jim Hart was not HOF caliber and hence doesn't deserve to be on the Cardinals set? So you are saying only HOF caliber players should be on these sets and not any very good players?
Are you also saying that starting 180 games as a franchises QB over an 18 year period doesn't constitute addition to the all-time team sets? Yet Warner belongs simply because he took a once terrible franchise to a Super Bowl? Even though he only played for them 5 years, went to one Pro Bowl and started 57 games for them?
Just wanting to clarify that the above is really your stance. Maybe I'm mis-reading you because to me these things contradict each other as one is an EXCLUSIVE view and one is INCLUSIVE. You can't have it both ways because once you start adding (or not adding) certain guys with specific resumes, it sets a PRECEDENT. This is exactly what ended up ruining most of these sets. One card or one player was allowed in one set. So new collector comes along, sees this and figures his guy, with similar resume should be added (or not added) to the set he cares about.
Pick your side and stick with it man...lolol
Jason >>
You're the one who has been demanding exclusivity yet insisting that a particular player belongs based on one limited criterion who wouldn't qualify by the standards you've supported for other team sets. I personally favor an inclusive approach, and if it means rose-colored glasses by fans of a particular team lets on the Rocky Bleiers and Lyle Alzados of the NFL (probably the 2 most popular old-timer jerseys of non-superstar players), that's fine with me. It's fans of a particular team, for the most part, who collect All-Time Greats sets for that team.
As far as ruining sets, I don't think the Bears set is ruined by being large - it just has a really daunting card at the top of the set - Nagurski. You could complete most ATG team sets in nice grade for less than the cost of a PSA 2 Nagurski. That's a major disincentive to even starting the set.
Of the 6 team sets that have 20 or more registered collectors, only the Packers (and maybe the 49ers) could be described as exclusive - the Dolphins and Bills sets are very, very inclusive.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i> It's fans of a particular team, for the most part, who collect All-Time Greats sets for that team.
Nick >>
You sure about that, or you just assume that is the case? Take a look across all the Key Card sets, specifically the team sets. 75%(some of the sets 100%) of the registered collectors have MORE THAN ONE team set listed. In fact, I'll even do your leg work for you. Here are the FACTS:
All-Time 49ers (22) -19 current collectors-16 of the 19 collect multiple teams
All-Time Bears (6)- 6 current collectors-5 of the 6 collect multiple teams
All-Time Bengals (9)- 9 current collectors-8 of the 9 collect multiple teams
All-Time Bills (24)- 20 current collectors-15 of the 20 collect multiple teams
All-Time Broncos (15)- 12 current collectors-9 of the 12 collect multiple teams
Nuff said? Shall I go on? Feel free to peruse the other team sets and you will see similar numbers. So, please, moving forward let's stick with the facts shall we? Throwing out random incorrect statements absolutely crushes your credibility. And really makes me question why we are even having this debate. Go do a little research and get your facts together that back up your opinions and then come back to us.
Bottom line is that the majority (not all) of the collectors of these sets are HALL OF FAME ROOKIE PLAYER set collectors, which is why this subject even belongs in this thread to begin with. VERY VERY few of the collectors on these sets are truly chasing them to completion because they are fans of the team/franchise. This is not my opinion, this is what the registered sets show us, and if you disagree so be it. Make all the requests to add that you want. If they get the votes, then they get added. Pretty simple, and unfortunately leaves ALL OF US at the mercy of the vote. Because if you make a request, you've got a 50/50 chance it gets accepted. And a denial usually means PSA will not re-request the addition again.
To me, the HOF team sets are looking like the way to go. No opinions, no collectors requesting additions, none of the drama. The HOF decides which players are "significant" for the specific franchises, and the HOF voters tell us who is a HOFer or not. No disrespect, but I very much like having to follow the HOF and the HOF voters opinions vs. collectors such as yourself who want either every guy who made a big play for a team added to the all-time team set, or the collectors who want every card added that they just so happen to have just gotten back from PSA.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
You're the one who has been demanding exclusivity yet insisting that a particular player belongs based on one limited criterion who wouldn't qualify by the standards you've supported for other team sets. I personally favor an inclusive approach, and if it means rose-colored glasses by fans of a particular team lets on the Rocky Bleiers and Lyle Alzados of the NFL (probably the 2 most popular old-timer jerseys of non-superstar players), that's fine with me. It's fans of a particular team, for the most part, who collect All-Time Greats sets for that team.
As far as ruining sets, I don't think the Bears set is ruined by being large - it just has a really daunting card at the top of the set - Nagurski. You could complete most ATG team sets in nice grade for less than the cost of a PSA 2 Nagurski. That's a major disincentive to even starting the set.
Of the 6 team sets that have 20 or more registered collectors, only the Packers (and maybe the 49ers) could be described as exclusive - the Dolphins and Bills sets are very, very inclusive.
Nick >>
i think you could have found two better examples than the Bills and Dolphins. take out HOF players, SB MVP's and other players that have made it past first round of voting in the HOF and there arent too many way out there examples. maybe you dont think zach thomas or jason taylor will get any HOF votes. or that jack kemp meant nothing to the bills. i will give you that mare and moulds are a little out of whack. but then again so is devin hester, neal anderson, todd bell, trace armstrong and few others on the bears set. half of the starting lineup from their only superbowl championship team is in the set. but only 3 (with Dent coming soon) are in the HOF from that team.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This is a little off topic, but why is Hornung part of the All Time Rushers Set? I tried to answer my own question but could not figure out why he is included in the set. >>
its that he is in the HOF as a running back. i think that would be enough to make you an all time rusher. though his election to the HOF wasnt only due to his rushing skills. he was an all around player (rusher, receiver, kicker and even a passer). he was also a scoring machine...and points are what win games.
right now current players need, i think, over 10,000 yards to be added. nearly all current HOF running backs are at 10,000+ yards. those that are, the more recent players (ie 16 game season players). here are those that are over 10,000.
E Smith
Payton
Sanders
Dickerson
Dorsett
Brown
Allen
Harris
Thomas
Riggins
OJ
Everyone else is under 10,000 yards. >>
Ok, then why aren't Matson, McElhenny, J.H. Johnson, or Kelly in the set if Hornung, Csonka, Taylor, and Campbell are included? >>
i am not sure. i didnt request the original set nor am i all that sure other than i think 10,000 yards is the current requirement (i could be wrong about that number it might be 12,00o). we would need to find out from some of the original set owners as to what the logic was in who was in and out to start with.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This is a little off topic, but why is Hornung part of the All Time Rushers Set? I tried to answer my own question but could not figure out why he is included in the set. >>
its that he is in the HOF as a running back. i think that would be enough to make you an all time rusher. though his election to the HOF wasnt only due to his rushing skills. he was an all around player (rusher, receiver, kicker and even a passer). he was also a scoring machine...and points are what win games.
right now current players need, i think, over 10,000 yards to be added. nearly all current HOF running backs are at 10,000+ yards. those that are, the more recent players (ie 16 game season players). here are those that are over 10,000.
E Smith
Payton
Sanders
Dickerson
Dorsett
Brown
Allen
Harris
Thomas
Riggins
OJ
Everyone else is under 10,000 yards. >>
Ok, then why aren't Matson, McElhenny, J.H. Johnson, or Kelly in the set if Hornung, Csonka, Taylor, and Campbell are included? >>
i am not sure. i didnt request the original set nor am i all that sure other than i think 10,000 yards is the current requirement (i could be wrong about that number it might be 12,00o). we would need to find out from some of the original set owners as to what the logic was in who was in and out to start with. >>
Excellent suggestion!
Would any of the original set owners please explain the original qualifications/criteria? I don't understand why Hornung was included over some of the other backs.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
<< <i> It's fans of a particular team, for the most part, who collect All-Time Greats sets for that team.
Nick >>
You sure about that, or you just assume that is the case? Take a look across all the Key Card sets, specifically the team sets. 75%(some of the sets 100%) of the registered collectors have MORE THAN ONE team set listed. In fact, I'll even do your leg work for you. Here are the FACTS:
All-Time 49ers (22) -19 current collectors-16 of the 19 collect multiple teams
All-Time Bears (6)- 6 current collectors-5 of the 6 collect multiple teams
All-Time Bengals (9)- 9 current collectors-8 of the 9 collect multiple teams
All-Time Bills (24)- 20 current collectors-15 of the 20 collect multiple teams
All-Time Broncos (15)- 12 current collectors-9 of the 12 collect multiple teams
Nuff said? Shall I go on? Feel free to peruse the other team sets and you will see similar numbers. So, please, moving forward let's stick with the facts shall we? Throwing out random incorrect statements absolutely crushes your credibility. And really makes me question why we are even having this debate. Go do a little research and get your facts together that back up your opinions and then come back to us.
Bottom line is that the majority (not all) of the collectors of these sets are HALL OF FAME ROOKIE PLAYER set collectors, which is why this subject even belongs in this thread to begin with. VERY VERY few of the collectors on these sets are truly chasing them to completion because they are fans of the team/franchise. This is not my opinion, this is what the registered sets show us, and if you disagree so be it. Make all the requests to add that you want. If they get the votes, then they get added. Pretty simple, and unfortunately leaves ALL OF US at the mercy of the vote. Because if you make a request, you've got a 50/50 chance it gets accepted. And a denial usually means PSA will not re-request the addition again.
To me, the HOF team sets are looking like the way to go. No opinions, no collectors requesting additions, none of the drama. The HOF decides which players are "significant" for the specific franchises, and the HOF voters tell us who is a HOFer or not. No disrespect, but I very much like having to follow the HOF and the HOF voters opinions vs. collectors such as yourself who want either every guy who made a big play for a team added to the all-time team set, or the collectors who want every card added that they just so happen to have just gotten back from PSA.
Jason >>
You are conflating 2 different things: people collecting these team ATG sets, and people who registered team ATG sets that overlap something they're collecting (often because it gives them free grades). That someone with a strong HOF rookie player collection (Fight4OldDC, for example) takes the 30 seconds to register a partial team ATG set consisting of the people from that team who are in his HOF Rookie and Future HOF Rookie sets doesn't mean he's collecting the team set. Back in the V1 days of the set registry, those generally didn't get registered. Now, why not click the "Start This Set". Even if you have no intention of getting anyone for the set who doesn't fall within your collecting focus, it's not as if you're losing anything.
Maybe the free grades are what this push for exclusivity is all about. The closer a team ATG set is to being a subset of the HOF Rookie and Future HOF Rookie sets, the easier it is for HOF collectors to get additional free grades.
jradke - you didn't even pick the most out-of-whack ones. How about Nat Moore, Garo Yepremian (making a huge Super Bowl play for the other team is not a plus), and Joe Cribbs.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.