<< <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. >>
The RB set was loaded before I found the Registry in Jan 2003. So was the QB and WR set. Hornung is borderline, much like Stabler in the QB set. I don;t know who requested them or what the logic was. For the all-time rushers, last I heard PSA was no longer using a yardage guideline to GUARANTEE addition to the set. You can request Ty Cobb be added and more than likely they will send out a poll. At one point, I as well as a few other collectors, had PSA agree to the 10,000 yard standard for rushers and 12,000 for WRs. But that was a few years ago and if memory serves, the last 10,000 rusher to be added had a poll sent out that required majority vote before adding.
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> 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.
Nick >>
No confusion here. You said most collectors of these sets are FANS of that particular team, which most certainly is not the case. Those who are registered are the ones who are going to be voting for set additions. Look through the sets and tell me how many are TRULY chasing each of these sets as a "fan" of the team. There are a few, but most certainly the minority.
Also, I haven't used or requested free gradings in probably 5+ years. It simply wasn't/isn't worth the hassle to me. To infer that is my reasoning for wanting STANDARDS on these sets that apply across the board for every team set is ridiculous. Especially considering my collection value borders on approx. 250K. A free $5 grading means zero to me. Exclusivity does not mean smaller sets or bigger sets. It means LOGICAL sets that make sense to the MASSES. When you advocate applying different standards to each team, it creates chaos and no one understands or has any clue as to the who, what, when, where and why a particular card resides in a set. Like you asking about Nat Moore and Joe Cribbs. In which your argument seems to be that since those guys don't really belong but have been added, might as well add all the other similar players. This is what turns it into being INCLUSIVE.
What I've stated all along, is that there should be standards/guidelines for who even qualifies to be added. And those guidelines should be applied equally and fairly across each team. Obviously, PSA has decided NOT to use this line of thinking anymore. And it's the reason I no longer collect the key card sets. That IL-logical thinking doesn't make sense to me, so I chose not to collect them any longer. Maybe it makes better sense to you and it has motivated you to collect these sets even harder. Go all out and get 100% on all of them...lol
The example that started this was Kurt Warner to the Cardinals set. In which, I opined that 5 years, 1 Pro Bowl and a Super Bowl loss can't be the new standard for addition as an "All-Time Great" for that franchise. Just simply not enough in totality IMO. Pretty simple stuff. If you wanna give it a hot and let the Cardinals collectors decide, hey have at it. Whatever floats your boat. If I were still collecting it, my vote would definitely be a NO.
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>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. >>
The RB set was loaded before I found the Registry in Jan 2003. So was the QB and WR set. Hornung is borderline, much like Stabler in the QB set. I don;t know who requested them or what the logic was. For the all-time rushers, last I heard PSA was no longer using a yardage guideline to GUARANTEE addition to the set. You can request Ty Cobb be added and more than likely they will send out a poll. At one point, I as well as a few other collectors, had PSA agree to the 10,000 yard standard for rushers and 12,000 for WRs. But that was a few years ago and if memory serves, the last 10,000 rusher to be added had a poll sent out that required majority vote before adding.
Jason >>
Thanks for answering my question Jason. IMO it doesn't seem like Hornung fits the set b/c his rushing totals seem so low compared to the other backs left out of the set. Would it be possible to remove his card from the set or add the other HOF backs that have better stats?
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.
Thanks for answering my question Jason. IMO it doesn't seem like Hornung fits the set b/c his rushing totals seem so low compared to the other backs left out of the set. Would it be possible to remove his card from the set or add the other HOF backs that have better stats? >>
Well, lets keep in mind that stats aren't everything. Particularly when you are talking pre-1980s. That being said, you could make the request to PSA to delete or add any card you want. But it would take majority vote via PSA poll to make it happen. With the popularity of the Hornung card, IMO it would not ever get the votes to be deleted. It's on of the top rookies from the 50's.
As far as additions to the set, I would think ANY HOF RB would have a good chance at being added. The initial set did not have Steve Van Buren because I remember the vote to add him a couple of years ago. I don;t particularly remember any other HOFers ever getting denied. All you can do is make the request and see how the voting goes.
For modern (current) players, anything less than 10,000 I would predict would not get the votes. Maybe even under 12,000 at this point...
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.
Thanks for answering my question Jason. IMO it doesn't seem like Hornung fits the set b/c his rushing totals seem so low compared to the other backs left out of the set. Would it be possible to remove his card from the set or add the other HOF backs that have better stats? >>
Well, lets keep in mind that stats aren't everything. Particularly when you are talking pre-1980s. That being said, you could make the request to PSA to delete or add any card you want. But it would take majority vote via PSA poll to make it happen. With the popularity of the Hornung card, IMO it would not ever get the votes to be deleted. It's on of the top rookies from the 50's.
As far as additions to the set, I would think ANY HOF RB would have a good chance at being added. The initial set did not have Steve Van Buren because I remember the vote to add him a couple of years ago. I don;t particularly remember any other HOFers ever getting denied. All you can do is make the request and see how the voting goes.
For modern (current) players, anything less than 10,000 I would predict would not get the votes. Maybe even under 12,000 at this point...
Jason >>
Any RB's that anyone would or wouldn't want added? IMO Hornung's place in the set pretty much opens it up to any HOF back.
I still like the 10,000 yard modern milestone for the set myself.
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> For modern (current) players, anything less than 10,000 I would predict would not get the votes. Maybe even under 12,000 at this point...
Jason >>
It will be interesting to watch this going forward, as the game continues to evolve to more passing, less running, fewer every-down backs with more RBBC's. I would think there are going to be fewer backs reaching the 10k+, 12k+ milestones. Then again, these factors may lead to longer careers for RBs, so it may be a wash.
Jason- I believe the yardage standards still stand for the RB, Wr, etc. The votes that get sent out have been for which card to use since most modern players have multiple RC's. Regardless though, I appreciate the voting process for new additions.
dfr52- I'm against voting out players that have already been put into the sets. I believe Hornungs place is deserving, but even if he was borderline, it's unfair to have a re-vote every few years because someone new doesn't agree. This happened recently with K. Warner in the all-time QB set. He was originally in the set (maybe a bit pre-maturely), but during is few years when he was backing up Eli manning and M. Leinart, was voted out of the set. This annoyed me personally because I had money invested in the card for the set, and overnight, the value of the card tanked. What added to the insult was that the RC card was not even from a set I collected. Well, Warner comes back. Puts up a few more solid years, goes to another Super Bowl, and now gets voted back into the set.
Voting players in and out of these all-time sets adds a volatility that I don't find appealing to collecting these sets. A player is either in or not, and once voted in shouldn't be removed because 3 years later he's not "the flavor of the month"
<< <i>Jason- I believe the yardage standards still stand for the RB, Wr, etc. The votes that get sent out have been for which card to use since most modern players have multiple RC's. Regardless though, I appreciate the voting process for new additions.
dfr52- I'm against voting out players that have already been put into the sets. I believe Hornungs place is deserving, but even if he was borderline, it's unfair to have a re-vote every few years because someone new doesn't agree. This happened recently with K. Warner in the all-time QB set. He was originally in the set (maybe a bit pre-maturely), but during is few years when he was backing up Eli manning and M. Leinart, was voted out of the set. This annoyed me personally because I had money invested in the card for the set, and overnight, the value of the card tanked. What added to the insult was that the RC card was not even from a set I collected. Well, Warner comes back. Puts up a few more solid years, goes to another Super Bowl, and now gets voted back into the set.
Voting players in and out of these all-time sets adds a volatility that I don't find appealing to collecting these sets. A player is either in or not, and once voted in shouldn't be removed because 3 years later he's not "the flavor of the month" >>
Ok, I understand that w/ Hornung, but I believe by including him it opens the door for more worthy HOF backs that aren't yet 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> For modern (current) players, anything less than 10,000 I would predict would not get the votes. Maybe even under 12,000 at this point...
Jason >>
It will be interesting to watch this going forward, as the game continues to evolve to more passing, less running, fewer every-down backs with more RBBC's. I would think there are going to be fewer backs reaching the 10k+, 12k+ milestones. Then again, these factors may lead to longer careers for RBs, so it may be a wash.
Jasen >>
I share the same thoughts, and it will be interesting to see if 30 is still a death sentence for most RB's.
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.
Ok, I understand that w/ Hornung, but I believe by including him it opens the door for more worthy HOF backs that aren't yet included.
I think if a player is already in the HOF, they are definitely worthy for consideration in this set. I believe the controversy will be for players like Terrell Davis. Dominant for a short period of time, but not having the stats to maybe make the Hall, or this set.
<< <i>Jason- I believe the yardage standards still stand for the RB, Wr, etc. The votes that get sent out have been for which card to use since most modern players have multiple RC's. Regardless though, I appreciate the voting process for new additions.
dfr52- I'm against voting out players that have already been put into the sets. I believe Hornungs place is deserving, but even if he was borderline, it's unfair to have a re-vote every few years because someone new doesn't agree. This happened recently with K. Warner in the all-time QB set. He was originally in the set (maybe a bit pre-maturely), but during is few years when he was backing up Eli manning and M. Leinart, was voted out of the set. This annoyed me personally because I had money invested in the card for the set, and overnight, the value of the card tanked. What added to the insult was that the RC card was not even from a set I collected. Well, Warner comes back. Puts up a few more solid years, goes to another Super Bowl, and now gets voted back into the set.
Voting players in and out of these all-time sets adds a volatility that I don't find appealing to collecting these sets. A player is either in or not, and once voted in shouldn't be removed because 3 years later he's not "the flavor of the month" >>
Frank, I think you're right. Last couple were for card selection. So hopefully PSA keeps the standard. Relaxing and changing their standards is what frustrated me the most on the Key Card sets...
Totally agree with voting guys off. Which is another reason I'm all about voting the right guys in at the right time. Rush jobs can kill ya, so can sets that are put together without logic and additions that get voted into sets because only 3 people vote.
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>Ok, I understand that w/ Hornung, but I believe by including him it opens the door for more worthy HOF backs that aren't yet included.
I think if a player is already in the HOF, they are definitely worthy for consideration in this set. I believe the controversy will be for players like Terrell Davis. Dominant for a short period of time, but not having the stats to maybe make the Hall, or this set. >>
Good call on Davis. IMO he'd needs the HOF induction to make it into the set.
I'm still ok w/ 10,000 yards for player not yet in the HOF.
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>Ok, I understand that w/ Hornung, but I believe by including him it opens the door for more worthy HOF backs that aren't yet included.
I think if a player is already in the HOF, they are definitely worthy for consideration in this set. I believe the controversy will be for players like Terrell Davis. Dominant for a short period of time, but not having the stats to maybe make the Hall, or this set. >>
Good call on Davis. IMO he'd needs the HOF induction to make it into the set.
I'm still ok w/ 10,000 yards for player not yet in the HOF. >>
I guess my question would be, does making the HOF automatically say to the world that you are an all-time great rusher? IMO, that should not make it automatic. Case in point.....
Hugh McElhenney Charley Trippi Lenny Moore Frank Gifford John Henry Johnson Doak Walker Ollie Matson Floyd Little Leroy Kelly Tony Canadeo Ernie Nevers Bronco Nagurski Ken Strong Bill Dudley Red Grange Cliff Battles Clark Hinkle Jim Thorpe George McAfee
These are your HOF RBs who are not currently listed on the set. The problem is, while all of them are considered RB/HB/FB by the HOF, most of them would never have earned HOF induction STRICTLY for their rushing ability. Kinda like Paul Hornung...
Hugh McElhenney-Also a great receiving back and return guy for his day. Does he make the HOF just based on his 5,261 yards in 12 seasons? Debatable. I'd be OK with him on or off the set. Charley Trippi-Also played QB and defense. Would not have made the HOF just with his 3,000+ yards rushing. Doesn't belong. Lenny Moore-Better WR than RB. More yards receiving than rushing..Is he an All-time rusher? GREAT player, but doesnt belong on Rusher set. Frank Gifford-Same as above. John Henry Johnson-OK, here's your first guy that got in the HOF mostly for his rushing. BUT, he wasn't elected as a modern candidate. If he's an all-timer, why did he need a Senior Selection to make the HOF? IMO, he doesn't belong. Doak Walker-Senior selection who was also selected for his all-around ability and not rushing ability. Doesn't belong. Ollie Matson-Another guy elected for all-around ability. Was a really good rusher though, much like McElhenney. I could buy him on the set, but certainly not a GLARING omission. Floyd Little-Another senior selection. If he was really that great, why so long to get in? Doesn't belong. Leroy Kelly-Senior selection, read above. Tony Canadeo-Senior selection, read above.
This starts the list of pre-modern players of which every one of them below was elected based on contributions to the early game and not based on pure rushing ability. None of them belong on the All-Time Rusher set. Ernie Nevers Bronco Nagurski Ken Strong Bill Dudley Red Grange Cliff Battles Clark Hinkle Jim Thorpe George McAfee
If it is the all-time rushers, shouldn't it be based on pure rushing ability? I mean 10,000 yards doesn;t mean you are a HOF automatically, but it does say that the guy was GREAT and running the football. IMO, that's what this set should be. If there is a guy or two that maybe shouldn;t be on the set, so be it. But adding more incorrect players won't fix it or make it anymore logical. If I still had a vote, McElhenney and Matson are the only missing HOFers I would even consider voting for. This isn;t the HOF RB set, its all-time rushers.
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>Ok, I understand that w/ Hornung, but I believe by including him it opens the door for more worthy HOF backs that aren't yet included.
I think if a player is already in the HOF, they are definitely worthy for consideration in this set. I believe the controversy will be for players like Terrell Davis. Dominant for a short period of time, but not having the stats to maybe make the Hall, or this set. >>
Good call on Davis. IMO he'd needs the HOF induction to make it into the set.
I'm still ok w/ 10,000 yards for player not yet in the HOF. >>
I guess my question would be, does making the HOF automatically say to the world that you are an all-time great rusher? IMO, that should not make it automatic. Case in point.....
Hugh McElhenney Charley Trippi Lenny Moore Frank Gifford John Henry Johnson Doak Walker Ollie Matson Floyd Little Leroy Kelly Tony Canadeo Ernie Nevers Bronco Nagurski Ken Strong Bill Dudley Red Grange Cliff Battles Clark Hinkle Jim Thorpe George McAfee
These are your HOF RBs who are not currently listed on the set. The problem is, while all of them are considered RB/HB/FB by the HOF, most of them would never have earned HOF induction STRICTLY for their rushing ability. Kinda like Paul Hornung...
Hugh McElhenney-Also a great receiving back and return guy for his day. Does he make the HOF just based on his 5,261 yards in 12 seasons? Debatable. I'd be OK with him on or off the set. Charley Trippi-Also played QB and defense. Would not have made the HOF just with his 3,000+ yards rushing. Doesn't belong. Lenny Moore-Better WR than RB. More yards receiving than rushing..Is he an All-time rusher? GREAT player, but doesnt belong on Rusher set. Frank Gifford-Same as above. John Henry Johnson-OK, here's your first guy that got in the HOF mostly for his rushing. BUT, he wasn't elected as a modern candidate. If he's an all-timer, why did he need a Senior Selection to make the HOF? IMO, he doesn't belong. Doak Walker-Senior selection who was also selected for his all-around ability and not rushing ability. Doesn't belong. Ollie Matson-Another guy elected for all-around ability. Was a really good rusher though, much like McElhenney. I could buy him on the set, but certainly not a GLARING omission. Floyd Little-Another senior selection. If he was really that great, why so long to get in? Doesn't belong. Leroy Kelly-Senior selection, read above. Tony Canadeo-Senior selection, read above.
This starts the list of pre-modern players of which every one of them below was elected based on contributions to the early game and not based on pure rushing ability. None of them belong on the All-Time Rusher set. Ernie Nevers Bronco Nagurski Ken Strong Bill Dudley Red Grange Cliff Battles Clark Hinkle Jim Thorpe George McAfee
If it is the all-time rushers, shouldn't it be based on pure rushing ability? I mean 10,000 yards doesn;t mean you are a HOF automatically, but it does say that the guy was GREAT and running the football. IMO, that's what this set should be. If there is a guy or two that maybe shouldn;t be on the set, so be it. But adding more incorrect players won't fix it or make it anymore logical. If I still had a vote, McElhenney and Matson are the only missing HOFers I would even consider voting for. This isn;t the HOF RB set, its all-time rushers. >>
Jason, I agree w/ most of your argument but I would add Kelly along w/ Matson and McElhenney. Kelly might have been a senior candidate but his rushing stats are very impressive, and I believe he has the most rushing yards of any of the backs listed above.
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 usual Jason, great analysis. Like I mentioned, These players should be " worthy for consideration in this set". By that, I mean they should be subject to debate instead of being added automatically. The fact that they are HOF'ers, I beleive, overcome any question that they are worthy for a vote.
This starts the list of pre-modern players of which every one of them below was elected based on contributions to the early game and not based on pure rushing ability. None of them belong on the All-Time Rusher set.
You guys are wound so tight into stats it effects your ability to resaon. Ok, now Red Grange, Bronko, et al, do not belong in the All-Time Rushing Set cuz their stats don't match up as well as Corey Dillons or Warrick Dunns?
This is the same reasoning that would leave Butkus off the All-Time team because other LB's had more int's, tackles and/or sacks.
"All-Time" qualifications should go way way beyond stats.
<< <i>"All-Time" qualifications should go way way beyond stats. >>
Hence the reason they are considered All-Time Greats AND are in the HOF. However, the discussion was about All-Time Rushers and the dynamics of the early era game have changed dramatically. The increased number of regular season games, the improved playing conditions, the change in blocking schemes, the increased reliance of the forward pass and a myriad of factors tilt the playing field to the modern player.
No one is disputing the greatness of the likes of Nagurski, Battles, Grange, etc. No one is suggesting that they were not great running backs. But the discussion is about All-Time Rushers and that changes the dynamics by which these great running backs are measured.
<< <i>This starts the list of pre-modern players of which every one of them below was elected based on contributions to the early game and not based on pure rushing ability. None of them belong on the All-Time Rusher set.
You guys are wound so tight into stats it effects your ability to resaon. Ok, now Red Grange, Bronko, et al, do not belong in the All-Time Rushing Set cuz their stats don't match up as well as Corey Dillons or Warrick Dunns?
This is the same reasoning that would leave Butkus off the All-Time team because other LB's had more int's, tackles and/or sacks.
"All-Time" qualifications should go way way beyond stats. >>
Well, I can tell you that personally I am an ANTI-STAT guy, which many here who have had numerous discussions on the subject will tell you. So I find it a little funny you chose one of my quotes and used it incorrectly. Nothing I said had anything to do with NUMBERS, absolutely zero. Instead, my point on the Rushers set has always been that it should be comprised of guys who were/are recognized as GREAT RUSHERS. PSA decided to merge 2 sets (all-time rushers and 10,000 yard rushers) a few years ago, hence the 10,000 number being an automatic addition. Grange, Bronko, etc. are recognized as GREAT PLAYERS, and players who revolutionized and popularized the game in its infancy. They are not however remembered or recognized mostly for their rushing ability.
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 fully understand the discussion - however, previously it was stated that Grange, and a list of about a dozen other old-timers should not be in this group. I disagree - Grange was far and away the most prolific "RUSHER" of his day - much like Jim Brown was in his day, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, etc....................hence, do not leave him out of an all time "rushers" category.
I fully understand the discussion - however, previously it was stated that Grange, and a list of about a dozen other old-timers should not be in this group. I disagree - Grange was far and away the most prolific "RUSHER" of his day - much like Jim Brown was in his day, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, etc....................hence, do not leave him out of an all time "rushers" category. >>
Grange was dominant in college but never really approached that level in the professional game. He was injured early in his pro career and wasn't the same player after that.
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 fully understand the discussion - however, previously it was stated that Grange, and a list of about a dozen other old-timers should not be in this group. I disagree - Grange was far and away the most prolific "RUSHER" of his day - much like Jim Brown was in his day, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, etc....................hence, do not leave him out of an all time "rushers" category. >>
Grange led the league (arguably since stats were never correctly kept in those days) just twice. 1929 and 1931. Finished 5th in 1930. This is in a 9 year career and compares him directly to the "Rushers" of his day. To say that he dominated his era like Jim Brown is not only laughable, it's insane. He had just a 3 year run as one of the top rushers, and would have never been elected to the HOF on pure rushing ability. It was his impact on the game as the first BIG NAME football player to make the move from the then more popular college game into the pros. Without that, he never makes the HOF.
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 is so difficult this time of year to NOT spend every available cent I have on HOF RCs. Need to practice some restraint!
Loved the tribute to Moose. I will forever be an advocate for the under-appreciated players/positions in this sport. It was great to see an all-time NFL fullback get some glory, brief as it may have been.
And seeing Rice in real-speed highlights always stuns me for some reason. I feel like I didn't see him play enough in my teens (the first half of his career). Christ he looked fast!! And 208 touchdowns is just crazy-talk. It's nice every so often to get visual reminders about how unbelievable some of the players in past eras were. Rice's legend only seems to grow in my mind as the years pass by.
<< <i>It is so difficult this time of year to NOT spend every available cent I have on HOF RCs. Need to practice some restraint!
Loved the tribute to Moose. I will forever be an advocate for the under-appreciated players/positions in this sport. It was great to see an all-time NFL fullback get some glory, brief as it may have been.
And seeing Rice in real-speed highlights always stuns me for some reason. I feel like I didn't see him play enough in my teens (the first half of his career). Christ he looked fast!! And 208 touchdowns is just crazy-talk. It's nice every so often to get visual reminders about how unbelievable some of the players in past eras were. Rice's legend only seems to grow in my mind as the years pass by. >>
I agree on Moose but I wish Smith would have suggested him for the HOF though.
Rice is the fastest "slow" WR I have ever seen.lol
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>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. >>
The RB set was loaded before I found the Registry in Jan 2003. So was the QB and WR set. Hornung is borderline, much like Stabler in the QB set. I don;t know who requested them or what the logic was. For the all-time rushers, last I heard PSA was no longer using a yardage guideline to GUARANTEE addition to the set. You can request Ty Cobb be added and more than likely they will send out a poll. At one point, I as well as a few other collectors, had PSA agree to the 10,000 yard standard for rushers and 12,000 for WRs. But that was a few years ago and if memory serves, the last 10,000 rusher to be added had a poll sent out that required majority vote before adding.
Jason >>
Thanks for answering my question Jason. IMO it doesn't seem like Hornung fits the set b/c his rushing totals seem so low compared to the other backs left out of the set. Would it be possible to remove his card from the set or add the other HOF backs that have better stats? >>
oh sure....you can't request this card being removed BEFORE I had to buy mine for the rushers set....LOL!!!!
oh sure....you can't request this card being removed BEFORE I had to buy mine for the rushers set....LOL!!!! >>
Have no fear, this card would never in a million years get the votes to be removed. It's one of the most popular cards in the set.
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.
oh sure....you can't request this card being removed BEFORE I had to buy mine for the rushers set....LOL!!!! >>
Have no fear, this card would never in a million years get the votes to be removed. It's one of the most popular cards in the set.
Jason >>
I never made the request, I just wanted the board's opinions on the set before I did anything.
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.
It was a real pleasure to personally meet some of this set's collectors at The National in Baltimore the other day. Some of you I've "known" for over a year, and now that I feel I can take those quotes away. I think that it says a lot about collectors and dealers that come to The National in person. It probably means those persons operate ethically and as such, are willing to openly network with others in the hobby. Each one of you that I met are "class" guys...really. Sorry that I didn't stay out late that one night with some of you. I'm more of the early to bed / early to rise / have a morning protein shake & work out type.
What a show! Though coming from Anchorage may diminish my perspective, I've never been to a card show nearly that big in my life. In fact, I would imagine that some Car Shows are smaller than this Card Show.
To pick out some card highlights among all the dealers, professional graders, autograph guests, and T206 Honus on display would be tough. Some of you probably saw Mile High Card Company display one amazing card at the show for their upcoming October auction - a 1952 Bowman Large Frank Gifford in PSA 9 Mint! Exceedingly few card images convey the gritty sense of competition with on-point aesthetics like this one. (The one below is a stock image).
Again, great and very meaningful to see some of you at The National.
From Peter Kings Monday morning QB yesterday......
<< <i>9. I think these are my early odds on the 2011 Hall class:
Player Odds Deion Sanders 3-5 Marshall Faulk 7-5 Shannon Sharpe 2-1 Richard Dent 12-5 Cris Carter 3-1 Jerome Bettis 4-1 Curtis Martin 4-1 Charles Haley 5-1 Andre Reed 7-1 Tim Brown 8-1 Dermontti Dawson 10-1 Roger Craig 10-1
When the five-man Seniors Committee meets later this month to determine the two other candidates to be considered by the 44 voters next February, the names with the most traction would appear to be one at linebacker -- Chris Hanburger, Chuck Howley or Maxie Baughan (did you know Baughan was voted to the Pro Bowl eight more times than Ray Nitschke?) -- and an offensive lineman ... maybe Jerry Kramer or Dick Stanfel. I hear lots of sentiment for Hanburger.
<< <i>From Peter Kings Monday morning QB yesterday......
<< <i>9. I think these are my early odds on the 2011 Hall class:
Player Odds Deion Sanders 3-5 Marshall Faulk 7-5 Shannon Sharpe 2-1 Richard Dent 12-5 Cris Carter 3-1 Jerome Bettis 4-1 Curtis Martin 4-1 Charles Haley 5-1 Andre Reed 7-1 Tim Brown 8-1 Dermontti Dawson 10-1 Roger Craig 10-1
When the five-man Seniors Committee meets later this month to determine the two other candidates to be considered by the 44 voters next February, the names with the most traction would appear to be one at linebacker -- Chris Hanburger, Chuck Howley or Maxie Baughan (did you know Baughan was voted to the Pro Bowl eight more times than Ray Nitschke?) -- and an offensive lineman ... maybe Jerry Kramer or Dick Stanfel. I hear lots of sentiment for Hanburger.
I don't think Howley has a shot due the recent inductions of Wright or Hayes but I would like to see him selected. I find it interesting that Nobis' name wasn't mentioned as a possible senior candidate.
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.
You know King usually provides some descent insights on the HOF voting. But this blurb is pretty off base IMO. For one, he doesn't have Willie Roaf listed in his top 12 odds list? I think Roaf goes in this year, first ballot. He, at the very least, has got to have better odds than longshot Roger Craig! Second, with the senior guys, he's throwing out some names of candidates who haven't made the senior semi-final list since they started using that process in 2004. Baughn? Hanburger? I'd love to see Hanburger be the selection, as I indeed think he is deserving, but if he's a favorite, how is it that 15 other senior candidates have been deemed more worthy each of the last 7 votes? It wouldn;t be a shocker, but would be a surprise...I think King may have been too in tune to training camp and didn't put too much thought into this small piece of his article.
I do however agree that an OL and LB are likely choices. I actually said the same in this thread almost a year ago. Here are my top 5 senior candidates for 2011 (alphabetical):
JERRY KRAMER TOMMY NOBIS DAVE ROBINSON OTIS TAYLOR MICK TINGELHOFF
The 5 senior committee members meet in Canton in 2 weeks. Have not seen this years semi-final list as of yet. Been off my radar as I have been embroiled in my move to Hawaii.
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>You know King usually provides some descent insights on the HOF voting. But this blurb is pretty off base IMO. For one, he doesn't have Willie Roaf listed in his top 12 odds list? I think Roaf goes in this year, first ballot. He, at the very least, has got to have better odds than longshot Roger Craig! Second, with the senior guys, he's throwing out some names of candidates who haven't made the senior semi-final list since they started using that process in 2004. Baughn? Hanburger? I'd love to see Hanburger be the selection, as I indeed think he is deserving, but if he's a favorite, how is it that 15 other senior candidates have been deemed more worthy each of the last 7 votes? It wouldn;t be a shocker, but would be a surprise...I think King may have been too in tune to training camp and didn't put too much thought into this small piece of his article.
I do however agree that an OL and LB are likely choices. I actually said the same in this thread almost a year ago. Here are my top 5 senior candidates for 2011 (alphabetical):
JERRY KRAMER TOMMY NOBIS DAVE ROBINSON OTIS TAYLOR MICK TINGELHOFF
The 5 senior committee members meet in Canton in 2 weeks. Have not seen this years semi-final list as of yet. Been off my radar as I have been embroiled in my move to Hawaii.
Jason >>
How about a Packer Sweep!!! No pun intended. This way they would finalize all the Lombardi Packers that are deserving of induction. I know many people say they have too many from those teams already. But if you know how they lost to the Eagles one would realize that they nearly had 6 Championships in the 60's. Yes only two SB wins but do you really think those younger and stronger teams wouldnt have one a SB if there would have been one back then.
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
Hi Dave, and thanks for asking. The only Football HOF RC that I picked up was the Gifford, and MHCC expected me to let it lie down again. No, I did not buy any. Some at the show asked if I still collect Football HOF RCs. I don't actively do so. I hold onto a few at this time and still have my set registered. Currently, I maintain and occasionally upgrade my All-Time Eagles and Bednarik Sets. Any pickups for you lately?
I've had some hobby struggles that began with a falling out between PSA & I last year (I won't get into that here). The inclusive mindset of the Football HOF Voting Committee caused further detachment for me - and it appears that the voting structure isn't expected to change. It was a coincidence that The National coincided with HOF Induction weekend. Too many guys get into the HOF. What happened in Canton over the weekend was a sobering reminder of that.
To me, the concept "Hall Of Fame" and phrase "gods of the game" used to be connected. No longer. Should this ever have happened?
<< <i>You know King usually provides some descent insights on the HOF voting. But this blurb is pretty off base IMO. For one, he doesn't have Willie Roaf listed in his top 12 odds list? I think Roaf goes in this year, first ballot. He, at the very least, has got to have better odds than longshot Roger Craig! Second, with the senior guys, he's throwing out some names of candidates who haven't made the senior semi-final list since they started using that process in 2004. Baughn? Hanburger? I'd love to see Hanburger be the selection, as I indeed think he is deserving, but if he's a favorite, how is it that 15 other senior candidates have been deemed more worthy each of the last 7 votes? It wouldn;t be a shocker, but would be a surprise...I think King may have been too in tune to training camp and didn't put too much thought into this small piece of his article.
I do however agree that an OL and LB are likely choices. I actually said the same in this thread almost a year ago. Here are my top 5 senior candidates for 2011 (alphabetical):
JERRY KRAMER TOMMY NOBIS DAVE ROBINSON OTIS TAYLOR MICK TINGELHOFF
The 5 senior committee members meet in Canton in 2 weeks. Have not seen this years semi-final list as of yet. Been off my radar as I have been embroiled in my move to Hawaii.
Jason >>
How about a Packer Sweep!!! No pun intended. This way they would finalize all the Lombardi Packers that are deserving of induction. I know many people say they have too many from those teams already. But if you know how they lost to the Eagles one would realize that they nearly had 6 Championships in the 60's. Yes only two SB wins but do you really think those younger and stronger teams wouldnt have one a SB if there would have been one back then. >>
I'd say 90% chance that one or the other (Kramer or Robinson) is a senior selection. 0% chance of both however....And a long wait for whichever of the two doesn't get selected this year. The senior committee members seem to believe that there are viable/worthy options for almost every franchise. And because of that, I think they will do their best to ''share the wealth" so to speak.
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>You know King usually provides some descent insights on the HOF voting. But this blurb is pretty off base IMO. For one, he doesn't have Willie Roaf listed in his top 12 odds list? I think Roaf goes in this year, first ballot. He, at the very least, has got to have better odds than longshot Roger Craig! Second, with the senior guys, he's throwing out some names of candidates who haven't made the senior semi-final list since they started using that process in 2004. Baughn? Hanburger? I'd love to see Hanburger be the selection, as I indeed think he is deserving, but if he's a favorite, how is it that 15 other senior candidates have been deemed more worthy each of the last 7 votes? It wouldn;t be a shocker, but would be a surprise...I think King may have been too in tune to training camp and didn't put too much thought into this small piece of his article.
I do however agree that an OL and LB are likely choices. I actually said the same in this thread almost a year ago. Here are my top 5 senior candidates for 2011 (alphabetical):
JERRY KRAMER TOMMY NOBIS DAVE ROBINSON OTIS TAYLOR MICK TINGELHOFF
The 5 senior committee members meet in Canton in 2 weeks. Have not seen this years semi-final list as of yet. Been off my radar as I have been embroiled in my move to Hawaii.
Jason >>
How about a Packer Sweep!!! No pun intended. This way they would finalize all the Lombardi Packers that are deserving of induction. I know many people say they have too many from those teams already. But if you know how they lost to the Eagles one would realize that they nearly had 6 Championships in the 60's. Yes only two SB wins but do you really think those younger and stronger teams wouldnt have one a SB if there would have been one back then. >>
I'd say 90% chance that one or the other (Kramer or Robinson) is a senior selection. 0% chance of both however....And a long wait for whichever of the two doesn't get selected this year. The senior committee members seem to believe that there are viable/worthy options for almost every franchise. And because of that, I think they will do their best to ''share the wealth" so to speak. >>
i knew it was a 0% chance. but if they just got it done with now it would be over. then they are done with the 60's Packers and wont have to deal with them anymore. then they could move on the 70s Cowboys.
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 knew it was a 0% chance. but if they just got it done with now it would be over. then they are done with the 60's Packers and wont have to deal with them anymore. then they could move on the 70s Cowboys. >>
I think the issue with that is, the there are just too many groups who are all demanding recognition. You got all these "overlooked" "deserving" players...Your pre-war guys, you got the AFL guys, 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 70's Cowboys, 70's Raiders, 70's Dolphins, 70's Vikings, etc...Not to mention the franchises like the Falcons and Broncos who are very under-represented in the HOF. Why do you think Floyd Little and Claude Humphrey were recent choices?
The only way the senior committee can appease the masses is to spread the wealth. Not to mention, the argument that is always used particularly for the Packers and Steelers is that they already have so many guys in. 60's Packers will end up with one more HOFer. Honestly I think either Kramer or Robinson gets shut out, at least over the next 10 years or so...Same with the 70's Cowboys...They MIGHT get one more senior elected in the next 10-15 years. Certainly won't be 4 (Howley, Jordan, Harris, Pearson)...70's Steelers (Greenwood and Donnie Shell) likely will never make it...Raiders have Stabler, Guy and Branch, I can see one of them getting in eventually. Kuech will get in for the Dolphins, but Dick Anderson won't. Tingelhoff and Marshall of the Vikings could both make it. One of the Falcons has got to go in at some point (Nobis and Humphrey). At least more from the AFL crew will get in..Otis Taylor, Johnny Robinson, John Hadl...And don;t forget about your Al Wistert and Lavvie Dilwegs either. The committee tends to reach way back at least once every 5 years.
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.
Wistert finally meets the criteria that two of the senior voters stated he needed to be seriously considered as he was inducted into the Eagles Ring of Honor last fall. Perhaps this is the year as Al's health has been failing. If elected, he has told me that neither Hell nor high water will keep him from attending. Perhaps my opinion on his inductability is a little biased and selfish, but if he does make it, I have a personal invite to attend as one of his guests.
i knew it was a 0% chance. but if they just got it done with now it would be over. then they are done with the 60's Packers and wont have to deal with them anymore. then they could move on the 70s Cowboys. >>
I think the issue with that is, the there are just too many groups who are all demanding recognition. You got all these "overlooked" "deserving" players...Your pre-war guys, you got the AFL guys, 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 70's Cowboys, 70's Raiders, 70's Dolphins, 70's Vikings, etc...Not to mention the franchises like the Falcons and Broncos who are very under-represented in the HOF. Why do you think Floyd Little and Claude Humphrey were recent choices?
The only way the senior committee can appease the masses is to spread the wealth. Not to mention, the argument that is always used particularly for the Packers and Steelers is that they already have so many guys in. 60's Packers will end up with one more HOFer. Honestly I think either Kramer or Robinson gets shut out, at least over the next 10 years or so...Same with the 70's Cowboys...They MIGHT get one more senior elected in the next 10-15 years. Certainly won't be 4 (Howley, Jordan, Harris, Pearson)...70's Steelers (Greenwood and Donnie Shell) likely will never make it...Raiders have Stabler, Guy and Branch, I can see one of them getting in eventually. Kuech will get in for the Dolphins, but Dick Anderson won't. Tingelhoff and Marshall of the Vikings could both make it. One of the Falcons has got to go in at some point (Nobis and Humphrey). At least more from the AFL crew will get in..Otis Taylor, Johnny Robinson, John Hadl...And don;t forget about your Al Wistert and Lavvie Dilwegs either. The committee tends to reach way back at least once every 5 years.
Jason >>
jason i know, i was saying that with tongue in cheek. to be honest i dont see why the 70's vikes need anymore. they didnt win one SB. the 90's bills will probably only have 5 and they went to 4 straight SB's. with reed maybe going in down the road. the vikes already have trak, page, yary, eller, krause and grant. i dont see
as a student of the game you should read Bob McGinn's SB book. growing up in milwaukee i was spoiled getting to read his coverage and learned alot about the game from his pieces. in his book he talks about tingelhoff being constantly overmatched in all those SB's. maybe thats a reason why he hasnt gotten much support for the HOF.
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
Actually, that is the exact reason that Tingelhoff hasn't made the HOF. He did not play well in his Super Bowl appearances.
For me, I actually disagree with the entire comparison thing among specific teams..As it pertains to Hall of Fame talented players. While Championships and Super Bowl rings are certainly PART of the equation, at times too much credence is given. What about the other 14-18 games they played that season. Were none of those games important in GETTING that team to the Super Bowl? Yes, TEAMS should be evaluated mostly by wins and championships. But there are plenty of cases of having GREAT HOF players on bad, less talented, non-winning teams.
Who cares if the Packers have 20 players from that team in the HOF. If the individual player showed consistent HOF talent, and is truly deserving of HOF induction, then the team (no matter how good or bad) they played for should not be held against them. On the same token, Jim Plunkett won 2 Super Bowls as the starting QB..Does that ALONE make him HOF worthy? No it doesn't, and shouldn't. Marginal players shouldn't get voted in simply because the team they played for won a bunch of games and/or Super Bowls. It is in individual accolade and the main ingredients of the debate should be the individuals play on the field. Not of those who played around him or against him.
Unfortunately, the current group of HOF voters is, for the most part, moronic. And unaware of how to even evaluate talent. There are some serious voters for sure, guys who KNOW THEIR STUFF. But the % of cluelessness is still way too high. I think I said it before, these voters should have to take an NFL history exam before they step in the room that day to vote. Fail the test, you don't get to vote. If you didn't know Johnny Unitas played for the Colts....If you can't remember that teams used to play fewer than 16 games in a season...YOU SHOULDN'T BE VOTING...
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>From Peter Kings Monday morning QB yesterday......
<< <i>9. I think these are my early odds on the 2011 Hall class:
Player Odds Deion Sanders 3-5 Marshall Faulk 7-5 Shannon Sharpe 2-1 Richard Dent 12-5 Cris Carter 3-1 Jerome Bettis 4-1 Curtis Martin 4-1 Charles Haley 5-1 Andre Reed 7-1 Tim Brown 8-1 Dermontti Dawson 10-1 Roger Craig 10-1
When the five-man Seniors Committee meets later this month to determine the two other candidates to be considered by the 44 voters next February, the names with the most traction would appear to be one at linebacker -- Chris Hanburger, Chuck Howley or Maxie Baughan (did you know Baughan was voted to the Pro Bowl eight more times than Ray Nitschke?) -- and an offensive lineman ... maybe Jerry Kramer or Dick Stanfel. I hear lots of sentiment for Hanburger.
I guess I don't understand these odds...can someone explain them to me. Like Roger Craig has a 10-1 odds, meaning a 10% chance right? Well, if that is right...what the is 3-5. In three votings he will get elected 5 times?
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Did anyone here win the PSA 10 '76 Randy White that ended tonight? If so, I may be interested in your 9 (provided you're upgrading from one, of course). Shoot me a PM. Thanks.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Chris Hanburger and Les Richter are the Senior selections for the HOF 2011...
Somewhat surprising to see 2 LBs, not to mention 2 LBs who have only recently gotten pushes.
But, good choices. Will be interesting to see if the voters end up comparing the 2 and only putting one into the HOF.
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.
Jason, were there any last-year modern candidates that moved into the senior pool this year?
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
<< <i>Jason, were there any last-year modern candidates that moved into the senior pool this year? >>
Really only 2 notables. Robert Brazile and Cliff Branch.
Neither made the top 15 seniors.
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>i find it kinda strange that those were the two that were picked. not that they dont deserve a shot, but of the others that were out there.
maybe they just want these guys to get their up or down vote and move on. >>
The funny thing is that it was the first time either of these players made the senior semifinal list of 15 or so, and the first time either had ever been discussed by the 5 man selection committee in Canton. Which seems to be the norm now. Basically, if the player has been a perennial candidate in the top 15 seniors the last few years, and hasn't been selected yet, it hurts their chances. They are no longer approaching it as if there is a line, or a progression, or guys waiting their turn. But rather anytime a new name pops up on the list, they focus on that player as being REALLY REALLY overlooked/wronged/forgotten and never getting a chance. Therefore,they are more deserving????
Personally, I disagree with that approach. Although I've been in the Chris Hanburger corner for YEARS, I wouldn't advocate him "jumping" others who have gotten more votes and been closer to being selected in the past. Tommy Nobis is the perfect example. He made the cut to the final 5 for three straight years. Yet, the last 2, has not. And now has watched 2 other LBs get selected ahead of him. Why weren't they ahead of him in the past?
I will be surprised to see both LBs get the votes to make the HOF. Which is another strange occurrence...Selecting 2 guys at the same position. I hope it's Hanburger that gets the call.
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>i find it kinda strange that those were the two that were picked. not that they dont deserve a shot, but of the others that were out there.
maybe they just want these guys to get their up or down vote and move on. >>
The funny thing is that it was the first time either of these players made the senior semifinal list of 15 or so, and the first time either had ever been discussed by the 5 man selection committee in Canton. Which seems to be the norm now. Basically, if the player has been a perennial candidate in the top 15 seniors the last few years, and hasn't been selected yet, it hurts their chances. They are no longer approaching it as if there is a line, or a progression, or guys waiting their turn. But rather anytime a new name pops up on the list, they focus on that player as being REALLY REALLY overlooked/wronged/forgotten and never getting a chance. Therefore,they are more deserving????
Personally, I disagree with that approach. Although I've been in the Chris Hanburger corner for YEARS, I wouldn't advocate him "jumping" others who have gotten more votes and been closer to being selected in the past. Tommy Nobis is the perfect example. He made the cut to the final 5 for three straight years. Yet, the last 2, has not. And now has watched 2 other LBs get selected ahead of him. Why weren't they ahead of him in the past?
I will be surprised to see both LBs get the votes to make the HOF. Which is another strange occurrence...Selecting 2 guys at the same position. I hope it's Hanburger that gets the call.
Jason >>
my question is what are the odds that neither get the final votes needed? you would have to think the voters would have to wonder why a nobis or robinson wasnt on that list over the two that are. in good thought process one would have to ask themselves how these two would get in over the other sr candiates that havent made it before and why these two should over those that havent.
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
Comments
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
The RB set was loaded before I found the Registry in Jan 2003. So was the QB and WR set. Hornung is borderline, much like Stabler in the QB set. I don;t know who requested them or what the logic was. For the all-time rushers, last I heard PSA was no longer using a yardage guideline to GUARANTEE addition to the set. You can request Ty Cobb be added and more than likely they will send out a poll. At one point, I as well as a few other collectors, had PSA agree to the 10,000 yard standard for rushers and 12,000 for WRs. But that was a few years ago and if memory serves, the last 10,000 rusher to be added had a poll sent out that required majority vote before adding.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
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.
Nick >>
No confusion here. You said most collectors of these sets are FANS of that particular team, which most certainly is not the case. Those who are registered are the ones who are going to be voting for set additions. Look through the sets and tell me how many are TRULY chasing each of these sets as a "fan" of the team. There are a few, but most certainly the minority.
Also, I haven't used or requested free gradings in probably 5+ years. It simply wasn't/isn't worth the hassle to me. To infer that is my reasoning for wanting STANDARDS on these sets that apply across the board for every team set is ridiculous. Especially considering my collection value borders on approx. 250K. A free $5 grading means zero to me. Exclusivity does not mean smaller sets or bigger sets. It means LOGICAL sets that make sense to the MASSES. When you advocate applying different standards to each team, it creates chaos and no one understands or has any clue as to the who, what, when, where and why a particular card resides in a set. Like you asking about Nat Moore and Joe Cribbs. In which your argument seems to be that since those guys don't really belong but have been added, might as well add all the other similar players. This is what turns it into being INCLUSIVE.
What I've stated all along, is that there should be standards/guidelines for who even qualifies to be added. And those guidelines should be applied equally and fairly across each team. Obviously, PSA has decided NOT to use this line of thinking anymore. And it's the reason I no longer collect the key card sets. That IL-logical thinking doesn't make sense to me, so I chose not to collect them any longer. Maybe it makes better sense to you and it has motivated you to collect these sets even harder. Go all out and get 100% on all of them...lol
The example that started this was Kurt Warner to the Cardinals set. In which, I opined that 5 years, 1 Pro Bowl and a Super Bowl loss can't be the new standard for addition as an "All-Time Great" for that franchise. Just simply not enough in totality IMO. Pretty simple stuff. If you wanna give it a hot and let the Cardinals collectors decide, hey have at it. Whatever floats your boat. If I were still collecting it, my vote would definitely be a NO.
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>
<< <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. >>
The RB set was loaded before I found the Registry in Jan 2003. So was the QB and WR set. Hornung is borderline, much like Stabler in the QB set. I don;t know who requested them or what the logic was. For the all-time rushers, last I heard PSA was no longer using a yardage guideline to GUARANTEE addition to the set. You can request Ty Cobb be added and more than likely they will send out a poll. At one point, I as well as a few other collectors, had PSA agree to the 10,000 yard standard for rushers and 12,000 for WRs. But that was a few years ago and if memory serves, the last 10,000 rusher to be added had a poll sent out that required majority vote before adding.
Jason >>
Thanks for answering my question Jason. IMO it doesn't seem like Hornung fits the set b/c his rushing totals seem so low compared to the other backs left out of the set. Would it be possible to remove his card from the set or add the other HOF backs that have better stats?
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>
Thanks for answering my question Jason. IMO it doesn't seem like Hornung fits the set b/c his rushing totals seem so low compared to the other backs left out of the set. Would it be possible to remove his card from the set or add the other HOF backs that have better stats? >>
Well, lets keep in mind that stats aren't everything. Particularly when you are talking pre-1980s. That being said, you could make the request to PSA to delete or add any card you want. But it would take majority vote via PSA poll to make it happen. With the popularity of the Hornung card, IMO it would not ever get the votes to be deleted. It's on of the top rookies from the 50's.
As far as additions to the set, I would think ANY HOF RB would have a good chance at being added. The initial set did not have Steve Van Buren because I remember the vote to add him a couple of years ago. I don;t particularly remember any other HOFers ever getting denied. All you can do is make the request and see how the voting goes.
For modern (current) players, anything less than 10,000 I would predict would not get the votes. Maybe even under 12,000 at this point...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Thanks for answering my question Jason. IMO it doesn't seem like Hornung fits the set b/c his rushing totals seem so low compared to the other backs left out of the set. Would it be possible to remove his card from the set or add the other HOF backs that have better stats? >>
Well, lets keep in mind that stats aren't everything. Particularly when you are talking pre-1980s. That being said, you could make the request to PSA to delete or add any card you want. But it would take majority vote via PSA poll to make it happen. With the popularity of the Hornung card, IMO it would not ever get the votes to be deleted. It's on of the top rookies from the 50's.
As far as additions to the set, I would think ANY HOF RB would have a good chance at being added. The initial set did not have Steve Van Buren because I remember the vote to add him a couple of years ago. I don;t particularly remember any other HOFers ever getting denied. All you can do is make the request and see how the voting goes.
For modern (current) players, anything less than 10,000 I would predict would not get the votes. Maybe even under 12,000 at this point...
Jason >>
Any RB's that anyone would or wouldn't want added? IMO Hornung's place in the set pretty much opens it up to any HOF back.
I still like the 10,000 yard modern milestone for the set myself.
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>
For modern (current) players, anything less than 10,000 I would predict would not get the votes. Maybe even under 12,000 at this point...
Jason >>
It will be interesting to watch this going forward, as the game continues to evolve to more passing, less running, fewer every-down backs with more RBBC's. I would think there are going to be fewer backs reaching the 10k+, 12k+ milestones. Then again, these factors may lead to longer careers for RBs, so it may be a wash.
Jasen
dfr52- I'm against voting out players that have already been put into the sets. I believe Hornungs place is deserving, but even if he was borderline, it's unfair to have a re-vote every few years because someone new doesn't agree. This happened recently with K. Warner in the all-time QB set. He was originally in the set (maybe a bit pre-maturely), but during is few years when he was backing up Eli manning and M. Leinart, was voted out of the set. This annoyed me personally because I had money invested in the card for the set, and overnight, the value of the card tanked. What added to the insult was that the RC card was not even from a set I collected. Well, Warner comes back. Puts up a few more solid years, goes to another Super Bowl, and now gets voted back into the set.
Voting players in and out of these all-time sets adds a volatility that I don't find appealing to collecting these sets. A player is either in or not, and once voted in shouldn't be removed because 3 years later he's not "the flavor of the month"
<< <i>Jason- I believe the yardage standards still stand for the RB, Wr, etc. The votes that get sent out have been for which card to use since most modern players have multiple RC's. Regardless though, I appreciate the voting process for new additions.
dfr52- I'm against voting out players that have already been put into the sets. I believe Hornungs place is deserving, but even if he was borderline, it's unfair to have a re-vote every few years because someone new doesn't agree. This happened recently with K. Warner in the all-time QB set. He was originally in the set (maybe a bit pre-maturely), but during is few years when he was backing up Eli manning and M. Leinart, was voted out of the set. This annoyed me personally because I had money invested in the card for the set, and overnight, the value of the card tanked. What added to the insult was that the RC card was not even from a set I collected. Well, Warner comes back. Puts up a few more solid years, goes to another Super Bowl, and now gets voted back into the set.
Voting players in and out of these all-time sets adds a volatility that I don't find appealing to collecting these sets. A player is either in or not, and once voted in shouldn't be removed because 3 years later he's not "the flavor of the month" >>
Ok, I understand that w/ Hornung, but I believe by including him it opens the door for more worthy HOF backs that aren't yet 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>
For modern (current) players, anything less than 10,000 I would predict would not get the votes. Maybe even under 12,000 at this point...
Jason >>
It will be interesting to watch this going forward, as the game continues to evolve to more passing, less running, fewer every-down backs with more RBBC's. I would think there are going to be fewer backs reaching the 10k+, 12k+ milestones. Then again, these factors may lead to longer careers for RBs, so it may be a wash.
Jasen >>
I share the same thoughts, and it will be interesting to see if 30 is still a death sentence for most RB's.
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 think if a player is already in the HOF, they are definitely worthy for consideration in this set. I believe the controversy will be for players like Terrell Davis. Dominant for a short period of time, but not having the stats to maybe make the Hall, or this set.
<< <i>Jason- I believe the yardage standards still stand for the RB, Wr, etc. The votes that get sent out have been for which card to use since most modern players have multiple RC's. Regardless though, I appreciate the voting process for new additions.
dfr52- I'm against voting out players that have already been put into the sets. I believe Hornungs place is deserving, but even if he was borderline, it's unfair to have a re-vote every few years because someone new doesn't agree. This happened recently with K. Warner in the all-time QB set. He was originally in the set (maybe a bit pre-maturely), but during is few years when he was backing up Eli manning and M. Leinart, was voted out of the set. This annoyed me personally because I had money invested in the card for the set, and overnight, the value of the card tanked. What added to the insult was that the RC card was not even from a set I collected. Well, Warner comes back. Puts up a few more solid years, goes to another Super Bowl, and now gets voted back into the set.
Voting players in and out of these all-time sets adds a volatility that I don't find appealing to collecting these sets. A player is either in or not, and once voted in shouldn't be removed because 3 years later he's not "the flavor of the month" >>
Frank, I think you're right. Last couple were for card selection. So hopefully PSA keeps the standard. Relaxing and changing their standards is what frustrated me the most on the Key Card sets...
Totally agree with voting guys off. Which is another reason I'm all about voting the right guys in at the right time. Rush jobs can kill ya, so can sets that are put together without logic and additions that get voted into sets because only 3 people vote.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Ok, I understand that w/ Hornung, but I believe by including him it opens the door for more worthy HOF backs that aren't yet included.
I think if a player is already in the HOF, they are definitely worthy for consideration in this set. I believe the controversy will be for players like Terrell Davis. Dominant for a short period of time, but not having the stats to maybe make the Hall, or this set. >>
Good call on Davis. IMO he'd needs the HOF induction to make it into the set.
I'm still ok w/ 10,000 yards for player not yet in the HOF.
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>Ok, I understand that w/ Hornung, but I believe by including him it opens the door for more worthy HOF backs that aren't yet included.
I think if a player is already in the HOF, they are definitely worthy for consideration in this set. I believe the controversy will be for players like Terrell Davis. Dominant for a short period of time, but not having the stats to maybe make the Hall, or this set. >>
Good call on Davis. IMO he'd needs the HOF induction to make it into the set.
I'm still ok w/ 10,000 yards for player not yet in the HOF. >>
I guess my question would be, does making the HOF automatically say to the world that you are an all-time great rusher? IMO, that should not make it automatic. Case in point.....
Hugh McElhenney
Charley Trippi
Lenny Moore
Frank Gifford
John Henry Johnson
Doak Walker
Ollie Matson
Floyd Little
Leroy Kelly
Tony Canadeo
Ernie Nevers
Bronco Nagurski
Ken Strong
Bill Dudley
Red Grange
Cliff Battles
Clark Hinkle
Jim Thorpe
George McAfee
These are your HOF RBs who are not currently listed on the set. The problem is, while all of them are considered RB/HB/FB by the HOF, most of them would never have earned HOF induction STRICTLY for their rushing ability. Kinda like Paul Hornung...
Hugh McElhenney-Also a great receiving back and return guy for his day. Does he make the HOF just based on his 5,261 yards in 12 seasons? Debatable. I'd be OK with him on or off the set.
Charley Trippi-Also played QB and defense. Would not have made the HOF just with his 3,000+ yards rushing. Doesn't belong.
Lenny Moore-Better WR than RB. More yards receiving than rushing..Is he an All-time rusher? GREAT player, but doesnt belong on Rusher set.
Frank Gifford-Same as above.
John Henry Johnson-OK, here's your first guy that got in the HOF mostly for his rushing. BUT, he wasn't elected as a modern candidate. If he's an all-timer, why did he need a Senior Selection to make the HOF? IMO, he doesn't belong.
Doak Walker-Senior selection who was also selected for his all-around ability and not rushing ability. Doesn't belong.
Ollie Matson-Another guy elected for all-around ability. Was a really good rusher though, much like McElhenney. I could buy him on the set, but certainly not a GLARING omission.
Floyd Little-Another senior selection. If he was really that great, why so long to get in? Doesn't belong.
Leroy Kelly-Senior selection, read above.
Tony Canadeo-Senior selection, read above.
This starts the list of pre-modern players of which every one of them below was elected based on contributions to the early game and not based on pure rushing ability. None of them belong on the All-Time Rusher set.
Ernie Nevers
Bronco Nagurski
Ken Strong
Bill Dudley
Red Grange
Cliff Battles
Clark Hinkle
Jim Thorpe
George McAfee
If it is the all-time rushers, shouldn't it be based on pure rushing ability? I mean 10,000 yards doesn;t mean you are a HOF automatically, but it does say that the guy was GREAT and running the football. IMO, that's what this set should be. If there is a guy or two that maybe shouldn;t be on the set, so be it. But adding more incorrect players won't fix it or make it anymore logical. If I still had a vote, McElhenney and Matson are the only missing HOFers I would even consider voting for. This isn;t the HOF RB set, its all-time rushers.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ok, I understand that w/ Hornung, but I believe by including him it opens the door for more worthy HOF backs that aren't yet included.
I think if a player is already in the HOF, they are definitely worthy for consideration in this set. I believe the controversy will be for players like Terrell Davis. Dominant for a short period of time, but not having the stats to maybe make the Hall, or this set. >>
Good call on Davis. IMO he'd needs the HOF induction to make it into the set.
I'm still ok w/ 10,000 yards for player not yet in the HOF. >>
I guess my question would be, does making the HOF automatically say to the world that you are an all-time great rusher? IMO, that should not make it automatic. Case in point.....
Hugh McElhenney
Charley Trippi
Lenny Moore
Frank Gifford
John Henry Johnson
Doak Walker
Ollie Matson
Floyd Little
Leroy Kelly
Tony Canadeo
Ernie Nevers
Bronco Nagurski
Ken Strong
Bill Dudley
Red Grange
Cliff Battles
Clark Hinkle
Jim Thorpe
George McAfee
These are your HOF RBs who are not currently listed on the set. The problem is, while all of them are considered RB/HB/FB by the HOF, most of them would never have earned HOF induction STRICTLY for their rushing ability. Kinda like Paul Hornung...
Hugh McElhenney-Also a great receiving back and return guy for his day. Does he make the HOF just based on his 5,261 yards in 12 seasons? Debatable. I'd be OK with him on or off the set.
Charley Trippi-Also played QB and defense. Would not have made the HOF just with his 3,000+ yards rushing. Doesn't belong.
Lenny Moore-Better WR than RB. More yards receiving than rushing..Is he an All-time rusher? GREAT player, but doesnt belong on Rusher set.
Frank Gifford-Same as above.
John Henry Johnson-OK, here's your first guy that got in the HOF mostly for his rushing. BUT, he wasn't elected as a modern candidate. If he's an all-timer, why did he need a Senior Selection to make the HOF? IMO, he doesn't belong.
Doak Walker-Senior selection who was also selected for his all-around ability and not rushing ability. Doesn't belong.
Ollie Matson-Another guy elected for all-around ability. Was a really good rusher though, much like McElhenney. I could buy him on the set, but certainly not a GLARING omission.
Floyd Little-Another senior selection. If he was really that great, why so long to get in? Doesn't belong.
Leroy Kelly-Senior selection, read above.
Tony Canadeo-Senior selection, read above.
This starts the list of pre-modern players of which every one of them below was elected based on contributions to the early game and not based on pure rushing ability. None of them belong on the All-Time Rusher set.
Ernie Nevers
Bronco Nagurski
Ken Strong
Bill Dudley
Red Grange
Cliff Battles
Clark Hinkle
Jim Thorpe
George McAfee
If it is the all-time rushers, shouldn't it be based on pure rushing ability? I mean 10,000 yards doesn;t mean you are a HOF automatically, but it does say that the guy was GREAT and running the football. IMO, that's what this set should be. If there is a guy or two that maybe shouldn;t be on the set, so be it. But adding more incorrect players won't fix it or make it anymore logical. If I still had a vote, McElhenney and Matson are the only missing HOFers I would even consider voting for. This isn;t the HOF RB set, its all-time rushers. >>
Jason, I agree w/ most of your argument but I would add Kelly along w/ Matson and McElhenney. Kelly might have been a senior candidate but his rushing stats are very impressive, and I believe he has the most rushing yards of any of the backs listed above.
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.
Approaching 20K in goodwins current auction!!!
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
You guys are wound so tight into stats it effects your ability to resaon. Ok, now Red Grange, Bronko, et al, do not belong in the All-Time Rushing Set cuz their stats don't match up as well as Corey Dillons or Warrick Dunns?
This is the same reasoning that would leave Butkus off the All-Time team because other LB's had more int's, tackles and/or sacks.
"All-Time" qualifications should go way way beyond stats.
<< <i>"All-Time" qualifications should go way way beyond stats. >>
Hence the reason they are considered All-Time Greats AND are in the HOF. However, the discussion was about All-Time Rushers and the dynamics of the early era game have changed dramatically. The increased number of regular season games, the improved playing conditions, the change in blocking schemes, the increased reliance of the forward pass and a myriad of factors tilt the playing field to the modern player.
No one is disputing the greatness of the likes of Nagurski, Battles, Grange, etc. No one is suggesting that they were not great running backs. But the discussion is about All-Time Rushers and that changes the dynamics by which these great running backs are measured.
<< <i>This starts the list of pre-modern players of which every one of them below was elected based on contributions to the early game and not based on pure rushing ability. None of them belong on the All-Time Rusher set.
You guys are wound so tight into stats it effects your ability to resaon. Ok, now Red Grange, Bronko, et al, do not belong in the All-Time Rushing Set cuz their stats don't match up as well as Corey Dillons or Warrick Dunns?
This is the same reasoning that would leave Butkus off the All-Time team because other LB's had more int's, tackles and/or sacks.
"All-Time" qualifications should go way way beyond stats. >>
Well, I can tell you that personally I am an ANTI-STAT guy, which many here who have had numerous discussions on the subject will tell you. So I find it a little funny you chose one of my quotes and used it incorrectly. Nothing I said had anything to do with NUMBERS, absolutely zero. Instead, my point on the Rushers set has always been that it should be comprised of guys who were/are recognized as GREAT RUSHERS. PSA decided to merge 2 sets (all-time rushers and 10,000 yard rushers) a few years ago, hence the 10,000 number being an automatic addition. Grange, Bronko, etc. are recognized as GREAT PLAYERS, and players who revolutionized and popularized the game in its infancy. They are not however remembered or recognized mostly for their rushing ability.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I fully understand the discussion - however, previously it was stated that Grange, and a list of about a dozen other old-timers should not be in this group. I disagree - Grange was far and away the most prolific "RUSHER" of his day - much like Jim Brown was in his day, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, etc....................hence, do not leave him out of an all time "rushers" category.
<< <i>Scott
I fully understand the discussion - however, previously it was stated that Grange, and a list of about a dozen other old-timers should not be in this group. I disagree - Grange was far and away the most prolific "RUSHER" of his day - much like Jim Brown was in his day, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, etc....................hence, do not leave him out of an all time "rushers" category. >>
Grange was dominant in college but never really approached that level in the professional game. He was injured early in his pro career and wasn't the same player after that.
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>Scott
I fully understand the discussion - however, previously it was stated that Grange, and a list of about a dozen other old-timers should not be in this group. I disagree - Grange was far and away the most prolific "RUSHER" of his day - much like Jim Brown was in his day, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, etc....................hence, do not leave him out of an all time "rushers" category. >>
Grange led the league (arguably since stats were never correctly kept in those days) just twice. 1929 and 1931. Finished 5th in 1930. This is in a 9 year career and compares him directly to the "Rushers" of his day. To say that he dominated his era like Jim Brown is not only laughable, it's insane. He had just a 3 year run as one of the top rushers, and would have never been elected to the HOF on pure rushing ability. It was his impact on the game as the first BIG NAME football player to make the move from the then more popular college game into the pros. Without that, he never makes the HOF.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Loved the tribute to Moose. I will forever be an advocate for the under-appreciated players/positions in this sport. It was great to see an all-time NFL fullback get some glory, brief as it may have been.
And seeing Rice in real-speed highlights always stuns me for some reason. I feel like I didn't see him play enough in my teens (the first half of his career). Christ he looked fast!! And 208 touchdowns is just crazy-talk. It's nice every so often to get visual reminders about how unbelievable some of the players in past eras were. Rice's legend only seems to grow in my mind as the years pass by.
<< <i>It is so difficult this time of year to NOT spend every available cent I have on HOF RCs. Need to practice some restraint!
Loved the tribute to Moose. I will forever be an advocate for the under-appreciated players/positions in this sport. It was great to see an all-time NFL fullback get some glory, brief as it may have been.
And seeing Rice in real-speed highlights always stuns me for some reason. I feel like I didn't see him play enough in my teens (the first half of his career). Christ he looked fast!! And 208 touchdowns is just crazy-talk. It's nice every so often to get visual reminders about how unbelievable some of the players in past eras were. Rice's legend only seems to grow in my mind as the years pass by. >>
I agree on Moose but I wish Smith would have suggested him for the HOF though.
Rice is the fastest "slow" WR I have ever seen.lol
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>
<< <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. >>
The RB set was loaded before I found the Registry in Jan 2003. So was the QB and WR set. Hornung is borderline, much like Stabler in the QB set. I don;t know who requested them or what the logic was. For the all-time rushers, last I heard PSA was no longer using a yardage guideline to GUARANTEE addition to the set. You can request Ty Cobb be added and more than likely they will send out a poll. At one point, I as well as a few other collectors, had PSA agree to the 10,000 yard standard for rushers and 12,000 for WRs. But that was a few years ago and if memory serves, the last 10,000 rusher to be added had a poll sent out that required majority vote before adding.
Jason >>
Thanks for answering my question Jason. IMO it doesn't seem like Hornung fits the set b/c his rushing totals seem so low compared to the other backs left out of the set. Would it be possible to remove his card from the set or add the other HOF backs that have better stats? >>
oh sure....you can't request this card being removed BEFORE I had to buy mine for the rushers set....LOL!!!!
<< <i>
oh sure....you can't request this card being removed BEFORE I had to buy mine for the rushers set....LOL!!!! >>
Have no fear, this card would never in a million years get the votes to be removed. It's one of the most popular cards in the set.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
oh sure....you can't request this card being removed BEFORE I had to buy mine for the rushers set....LOL!!!! >>
Have no fear, this card would never in a million years get the votes to be removed. It's one of the most popular cards in the set.
Jason >>
I never made the request, I just wanted the board's opinions on the set before I did anything.
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.
What a show! Though coming from Anchorage may diminish my perspective, I've never been to a card show nearly that big in my life. In fact, I would imagine that some Car Shows are smaller than this Card Show.
To pick out some card highlights among all the dealers, professional graders, autograph guests, and T206 Honus on display would be tough. Some of you probably saw Mile High Card Company display one amazing card at the show for their upcoming October auction - a 1952 Bowman Large Frank Gifford in PSA 9 Mint! Exceedingly few card images convey the gritty sense of competition with on-point aesthetics like this one. (The one below is a stock image).
Again, great and very meaningful to see some of you at The National.
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>9. I think these are my early odds on the 2011 Hall class:
Player Odds
Deion Sanders 3-5
Marshall Faulk 7-5
Shannon Sharpe 2-1
Richard Dent 12-5
Cris Carter 3-1
Jerome Bettis 4-1
Curtis Martin 4-1
Charles Haley 5-1
Andre Reed 7-1
Tim Brown 8-1
Dermontti Dawson 10-1
Roger Craig 10-1
When the five-man Seniors Committee meets later this month to determine the two other candidates to be considered by the 44 voters next February, the names with the most traction would appear to be one at linebacker -- Chris Hanburger, Chuck Howley or Maxie Baughan (did you know Baughan was voted to the Pro Bowl eight more times than Ray Nitschke?) -- and an offensive lineman ... maybe Jerry Kramer or Dick Stanfel. I hear lots of sentiment for Hanburger.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/08/08/mmqb/5.html#ixzz0wDN6IKEd
>>
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>From Peter Kings Monday morning QB yesterday......
<< <i>9. I think these are my early odds on the 2011 Hall class:
Player Odds
Deion Sanders 3-5
Marshall Faulk 7-5
Shannon Sharpe 2-1
Richard Dent 12-5
Cris Carter 3-1
Jerome Bettis 4-1
Curtis Martin 4-1
Charles Haley 5-1
Andre Reed 7-1
Tim Brown 8-1
Dermontti Dawson 10-1
Roger Craig 10-1
When the five-man Seniors Committee meets later this month to determine the two other candidates to be considered by the 44 voters next February, the names with the most traction would appear to be one at linebacker -- Chris Hanburger, Chuck Howley or Maxie Baughan (did you know Baughan was voted to the Pro Bowl eight more times than Ray Nitschke?) -- and an offensive lineman ... maybe Jerry Kramer or Dick Stanfel. I hear lots of sentiment for Hanburger.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/08/08/mmqb/5.html#ixzz0wDN6IKEd
>>
>>
I don't think Howley has a shot due the recent inductions of Wright or Hayes but I would like to see him selected. I find it interesting that Nobis' name wasn't mentioned as a possible senior candidate.
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 do however agree that an OL and LB are likely choices. I actually said the same in this thread almost a year ago. Here are my top 5 senior candidates for 2011 (alphabetical):
JERRY KRAMER
TOMMY NOBIS
DAVE ROBINSON
OTIS TAYLOR
MICK TINGELHOFF
The 5 senior committee members meet in Canton in 2 weeks. Have not seen this years semi-final list as of yet. Been off my radar as I have been embroiled in my move to Hawaii.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>You know King usually provides some descent insights on the HOF voting. But this blurb is pretty off base IMO. For one, he doesn't have Willie Roaf listed in his top 12 odds list? I think Roaf goes in this year, first ballot. He, at the very least, has got to have better odds than longshot Roger Craig! Second, with the senior guys, he's throwing out some names of candidates who haven't made the senior semi-final list since they started using that process in 2004. Baughn? Hanburger? I'd love to see Hanburger be the selection, as I indeed think he is deserving, but if he's a favorite, how is it that 15 other senior candidates have been deemed more worthy each of the last 7 votes? It wouldn;t be a shocker, but would be a surprise...I think King may have been too in tune to training camp and didn't put too much thought into this small piece of his article.
I do however agree that an OL and LB are likely choices. I actually said the same in this thread almost a year ago. Here are my top 5 senior candidates for 2011 (alphabetical):
JERRY KRAMER
TOMMY NOBIS
DAVE ROBINSON
OTIS TAYLOR
MICK TINGELHOFF
The 5 senior committee members meet in Canton in 2 weeks. Have not seen this years semi-final list as of yet. Been off my radar as I have been embroiled in my move to Hawaii.
Jason >>
How about a Packer Sweep!!! No pun intended. This way they would finalize all the Lombardi Packers that are deserving of induction. I know many people say they have too many from those teams already. But if you know how they lost to the Eagles one would realize that they nearly had 6 Championships in the 60's. Yes only two SB wins but do you really think those younger and stronger teams wouldnt have one a SB if there would have been one back then.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>Keith, Did you pick up any HOF RC's? >>
Hi Dave, and thanks for asking. The only Football HOF RC that I picked up was the Gifford, and MHCC expected me to let it lie down again.
I've had some hobby struggles that began with a falling out between PSA & I last year (I won't get into that here). The inclusive mindset of the Football HOF Voting Committee caused further detachment for me - and it appears that the voting structure isn't expected to change. It was a coincidence that The National coincided with HOF Induction weekend. Too many guys get into the HOF. What happened in Canton over the weekend was a sobering reminder of that.
To me, the concept "Hall Of Fame" and phrase "gods of the game" used to be connected. No longer. Should this ever have happened?
<< <i>
<< <i>You know King usually provides some descent insights on the HOF voting. But this blurb is pretty off base IMO. For one, he doesn't have Willie Roaf listed in his top 12 odds list? I think Roaf goes in this year, first ballot. He, at the very least, has got to have better odds than longshot Roger Craig! Second, with the senior guys, he's throwing out some names of candidates who haven't made the senior semi-final list since they started using that process in 2004. Baughn? Hanburger? I'd love to see Hanburger be the selection, as I indeed think he is deserving, but if he's a favorite, how is it that 15 other senior candidates have been deemed more worthy each of the last 7 votes? It wouldn;t be a shocker, but would be a surprise...I think King may have been too in tune to training camp and didn't put too much thought into this small piece of his article.
I do however agree that an OL and LB are likely choices. I actually said the same in this thread almost a year ago. Here are my top 5 senior candidates for 2011 (alphabetical):
JERRY KRAMER
TOMMY NOBIS
DAVE ROBINSON
OTIS TAYLOR
MICK TINGELHOFF
The 5 senior committee members meet in Canton in 2 weeks. Have not seen this years semi-final list as of yet. Been off my radar as I have been embroiled in my move to Hawaii.
Jason >>
How about a Packer Sweep!!! No pun intended. This way they would finalize all the Lombardi Packers that are deserving of induction. I know many people say they have too many from those teams already. But if you know how they lost to the Eagles one would realize that they nearly had 6 Championships in the 60's. Yes only two SB wins but do you really think those younger and stronger teams wouldnt have one a SB if there would have been one back then. >>
I'd say 90% chance that one or the other (Kramer or Robinson) is a senior selection. 0% chance of both however....And a long wait for whichever of the two doesn't get selected this year. The senior committee members seem to believe that there are viable/worthy options for almost every franchise. And because of that, I think they will do their best to ''share the wealth" so to speak.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>You know King usually provides some descent insights on the HOF voting. But this blurb is pretty off base IMO. For one, he doesn't have Willie Roaf listed in his top 12 odds list? I think Roaf goes in this year, first ballot. He, at the very least, has got to have better odds than longshot Roger Craig! Second, with the senior guys, he's throwing out some names of candidates who haven't made the senior semi-final list since they started using that process in 2004. Baughn? Hanburger? I'd love to see Hanburger be the selection, as I indeed think he is deserving, but if he's a favorite, how is it that 15 other senior candidates have been deemed more worthy each of the last 7 votes? It wouldn;t be a shocker, but would be a surprise...I think King may have been too in tune to training camp and didn't put too much thought into this small piece of his article.
I do however agree that an OL and LB are likely choices. I actually said the same in this thread almost a year ago. Here are my top 5 senior candidates for 2011 (alphabetical):
JERRY KRAMER
TOMMY NOBIS
DAVE ROBINSON
OTIS TAYLOR
MICK TINGELHOFF
The 5 senior committee members meet in Canton in 2 weeks. Have not seen this years semi-final list as of yet. Been off my radar as I have been embroiled in my move to Hawaii.
Jason >>
How about a Packer Sweep!!! No pun intended. This way they would finalize all the Lombardi Packers that are deserving of induction. I know many people say they have too many from those teams already. But if you know how they lost to the Eagles one would realize that they nearly had 6 Championships in the 60's. Yes only two SB wins but do you really think those younger and stronger teams wouldnt have one a SB if there would have been one back then. >>
I'd say 90% chance that one or the other (Kramer or Robinson) is a senior selection. 0% chance of both however....And a long wait for whichever of the two doesn't get selected this year. The senior committee members seem to believe that there are viable/worthy options for almost every franchise. And because of that, I think they will do their best to ''share the wealth" so to speak. >>
i knew it was a 0% chance. but if they just got it done with now it would be over. then they are done with the 60's Packers and wont have to deal with them anymore. then they could move on the 70s Cowboys.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
i knew it was a 0% chance. but if they just got it done with now it would be over. then they are done with the 60's Packers and wont have to deal with them anymore. then they could move on the 70s Cowboys. >>
I think the issue with that is, the there are just too many groups who are all demanding recognition. You got all these "overlooked" "deserving" players...Your pre-war guys, you got the AFL guys, 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 70's Cowboys, 70's Raiders, 70's Dolphins, 70's Vikings, etc...Not to mention the franchises like the Falcons and Broncos who are very under-represented in the HOF. Why do you think Floyd Little and Claude Humphrey were recent choices?
The only way the senior committee can appease the masses is to spread the wealth. Not to mention, the argument that is always used particularly for the Packers and Steelers is that they already have so many guys in. 60's Packers will end up with one more HOFer. Honestly I think either Kramer or Robinson gets shut out, at least over the next 10 years or so...Same with the 70's Cowboys...They MIGHT get one more senior elected in the next 10-15 years. Certainly won't be 4 (Howley, Jordan, Harris, Pearson)...70's Steelers (Greenwood and Donnie Shell) likely will never make it...Raiders have Stabler, Guy and Branch, I can see one of them getting in eventually. Kuech will get in for the Dolphins, but Dick Anderson won't. Tingelhoff and Marshall of the Vikings could both make it. One of the Falcons has got to go in at some point (Nobis and Humphrey). At least more from the AFL crew will get in..Otis Taylor, Johnny Robinson, John Hadl...And don;t forget about your Al Wistert and Lavvie Dilwegs either. The committee tends to reach way back at least once every 5 years.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Al Wistert for HOF 2011!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>
i knew it was a 0% chance. but if they just got it done with now it would be over. then they are done with the 60's Packers and wont have to deal with them anymore. then they could move on the 70s Cowboys. >>
I think the issue with that is, the there are just too many groups who are all demanding recognition. You got all these "overlooked" "deserving" players...Your pre-war guys, you got the AFL guys, 60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 70's Cowboys, 70's Raiders, 70's Dolphins, 70's Vikings, etc...Not to mention the franchises like the Falcons and Broncos who are very under-represented in the HOF. Why do you think Floyd Little and Claude Humphrey were recent choices?
The only way the senior committee can appease the masses is to spread the wealth. Not to mention, the argument that is always used particularly for the Packers and Steelers is that they already have so many guys in. 60's Packers will end up with one more HOFer. Honestly I think either Kramer or Robinson gets shut out, at least over the next 10 years or so...Same with the 70's Cowboys...They MIGHT get one more senior elected in the next 10-15 years. Certainly won't be 4 (Howley, Jordan, Harris, Pearson)...70's Steelers (Greenwood and Donnie Shell) likely will never make it...Raiders have Stabler, Guy and Branch, I can see one of them getting in eventually. Kuech will get in for the Dolphins, but Dick Anderson won't. Tingelhoff and Marshall of the Vikings could both make it. One of the Falcons has got to go in at some point (Nobis and Humphrey). At least more from the AFL crew will get in..Otis Taylor, Johnny Robinson, John Hadl...And don;t forget about your Al Wistert and Lavvie Dilwegs either. The committee tends to reach way back at least once every 5 years.
Jason >>
jason i know, i was saying that with tongue in cheek. to be honest i dont see why the 70's vikes need anymore. they didnt win one SB. the 90's bills will probably only have 5 and they went to 4 straight SB's. with reed maybe going in down the road. the vikes already have trak, page, yary, eller, krause and grant. i dont see
as a student of the game you should read Bob McGinn's SB book. growing up in milwaukee i was spoiled getting to read his coverage and learned alot about the game from his pieces. in his book he talks about tingelhoff being constantly overmatched in all those SB's. maybe thats a reason why he hasnt gotten much support for the HOF.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
For me, I actually disagree with the entire comparison thing among specific teams..As it pertains to Hall of Fame talented players. While Championships and Super Bowl rings are certainly PART of the equation, at times too much credence is given. What about the other 14-18 games they played that season. Were none of those games important in GETTING that team to the Super Bowl? Yes, TEAMS should be evaluated mostly by wins and championships. But there are plenty of cases of having GREAT HOF players on bad, less talented, non-winning teams.
Who cares if the Packers have 20 players from that team in the HOF. If the individual player showed consistent HOF talent, and is truly deserving of HOF induction, then the team (no matter how good or bad) they played for should not be held against them. On the same token, Jim Plunkett won 2 Super Bowls as the starting QB..Does that ALONE make him HOF worthy? No it doesn't, and shouldn't. Marginal players shouldn't get voted in simply because the team they played for won a bunch of games and/or Super Bowls. It is in individual accolade and the main ingredients of the debate should be the individuals play on the field. Not of those who played around him or against him.
Unfortunately, the current group of HOF voters is, for the most part, moronic. And unaware of how to even evaluate talent. There are some serious voters for sure, guys who KNOW THEIR STUFF. But the % of cluelessness is still way too high. I think I said it before, these voters should have to take an NFL history exam before they step in the room that day to vote. Fail the test, you don't get to vote. If you didn't know Johnny Unitas played for the Colts....If you can't remember that teams used to play fewer than 16 games in a season...YOU SHOULDN'T BE VOTING...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>From Peter Kings Monday morning QB yesterday......
<< <i>9. I think these are my early odds on the 2011 Hall class:
Player Odds
Deion Sanders 3-5
Marshall Faulk 7-5
Shannon Sharpe 2-1
Richard Dent 12-5
Cris Carter 3-1
Jerome Bettis 4-1
Curtis Martin 4-1
Charles Haley 5-1
Andre Reed 7-1
Tim Brown 8-1
Dermontti Dawson 10-1
Roger Craig 10-1
When the five-man Seniors Committee meets later this month to determine the two other candidates to be considered by the 44 voters next February, the names with the most traction would appear to be one at linebacker -- Chris Hanburger, Chuck Howley or Maxie Baughan (did you know Baughan was voted to the Pro Bowl eight more times than Ray Nitschke?) -- and an offensive lineman ... maybe Jerry Kramer or Dick Stanfel. I hear lots of sentiment for Hanburger.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/08/08/mmqb/5.html#ixzz0wDN6IKEd
>>
>>
I guess I don't understand these odds...can someone explain them to me. Like Roger Craig has a 10-1 odds, meaning a 10% chance right? Well, if that is right...what the is 3-5. In three votings he will get elected 5 times?
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I have some HOFer's for sale. All prices are delivered
Adderley is $65
Davis is $40
Elway is $22
Bethea is $22
Dwight, Casper, Slater are $4 each
PM me if interested.
Somewhat surprising to see 2 LBs, not to mention 2 LBs who have only recently gotten pushes.
But, good choices. Will be interesting to see if the voters end up comparing the 2 and only putting one into the HOF.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Jason, were there any last-year modern candidates that moved into the senior pool this year? >>
Really only 2 notables. Robert Brazile and Cliff Branch.
Neither made the top 15 seniors.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
maybe they just want these guys to get their up or down vote and move on.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>i find it kinda strange that those were the two that were picked. not that they dont deserve a shot, but of the others that were out there.
maybe they just want these guys to get their up or down vote and move on. >>
The funny thing is that it was the first time either of these players made the senior semifinal list of 15 or so, and the first time either had ever been discussed by the 5 man selection committee in Canton. Which seems to be the norm now. Basically, if the player has been a perennial candidate in the top 15 seniors the last few years, and hasn't been selected yet, it hurts their chances. They are no longer approaching it as if there is a line, or a progression, or guys waiting their turn. But rather anytime a new name pops up on the list, they focus on that player as being REALLY REALLY overlooked/wronged/forgotten and never getting a chance. Therefore,they are more deserving????
Personally, I disagree with that approach. Although I've been in the Chris Hanburger corner for YEARS, I wouldn't advocate him "jumping" others who have gotten more votes and been closer to being selected in the past. Tommy Nobis is the perfect example. He made the cut to the final 5 for three straight years. Yet, the last 2, has not. And now has watched 2 other LBs get selected ahead of him. Why weren't they ahead of him in the past?
I will be surprised to see both LBs get the votes to make the HOF. Which is another strange occurrence...Selecting 2 guys at the same position. I hope it's Hanburger that gets the call.
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 find it kinda strange that those were the two that were picked. not that they dont deserve a shot, but of the others that were out there.
maybe they just want these guys to get their up or down vote and move on. >>
The funny thing is that it was the first time either of these players made the senior semifinal list of 15 or so, and the first time either had ever been discussed by the 5 man selection committee in Canton. Which seems to be the norm now. Basically, if the player has been a perennial candidate in the top 15 seniors the last few years, and hasn't been selected yet, it hurts their chances. They are no longer approaching it as if there is a line, or a progression, or guys waiting their turn. But rather anytime a new name pops up on the list, they focus on that player as being REALLY REALLY overlooked/wronged/forgotten and never getting a chance. Therefore,they are more deserving????
Personally, I disagree with that approach. Although I've been in the Chris Hanburger corner for YEARS, I wouldn't advocate him "jumping" others who have gotten more votes and been closer to being selected in the past. Tommy Nobis is the perfect example. He made the cut to the final 5 for three straight years. Yet, the last 2, has not. And now has watched 2 other LBs get selected ahead of him. Why weren't they ahead of him in the past?
I will be surprised to see both LBs get the votes to make the HOF. Which is another strange occurrence...Selecting 2 guys at the same position. I hope it's Hanburger that gets the call.
Jason >>
my question is what are the odds that neither get the final votes needed? you would have to think the voters would have to wonder why a nobis or robinson wasnt on that list over the two that are. in good thought process one would have to ask themselves how these two would get in over the other sr candiates that havent made it before and why these two should over those that havent.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's