<< <i> 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. >>
Well, that would assume that all of the voters apply logic to their votes. When in fact, only about half of them do. The other half either vote for the guy who gets a good presentation, or whoever their buddies want them to vote for. Far too many inexperienced voters in the room right now. It's impossible to predict.
It's almost like the senior committee is TRYING to find only one HOFer from the senior pool each year and has been using the 2nd spot almost as a pawn to help the other guy. It's weird, and I just don't get it. Cause like last year, when it seemed Floyd Little was the pawn, he still got the votes due to a great presentation in the meeting...
BAH HUMBUG! lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
100. Joe Namath 99. Michael Strahan 98. Lee Roy Selmon 97. Derrick Brooks 96. Mel Hein 95. Larry Allen 94. Lenny Moore 93. Sam Huff 92. Michael Irvin 91. Fran Tarkenton 90. Warner 89. Nevers 88. Reed 87. Hirsch 86. W.Davis 85. M.Allen 84. J.Schmidt 83. Van Brocklin 82. Hendricks 81. Young
I've enjoyed the pieces on the players but I believe the list is inaccurate. Nevers and Hein only rated in the 80's and 90's? Warner and Reed even on the list? I can see where they are headed w/ the rankings. I'll continue to enjoy the programs but the list is pretty arbitrary IMO.
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.
Actually I think the list will be pretty telling. Simply based on who the voters were and how the list was comprised.
"The blue-ribbon panel includes both current and former NFL coaches, players and front office personnel, as well as noted NFL media members, Hall of Fame voters and league historians including: Ernie Accorsi (former Giants General Manager), Cris Collinsworth (former player and NBC game analyst), Mike Brown (Bengals Owner), Pat Summerall (former NFL sportscaster), Dick Vermeil (former NFL head coach) and Peter King (NFL writer).
More than 250 players from the modern and pre-modern era, including current NFL players, were under consideration by the blue-ribbon panel for selection. The Top 100 will answer for the first time the question of whether players like Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Deacon Jones, Tom Brady, Barry Sanders, Ray Lewis and Jim Thorpe make the list and where they rank."
I certainly don't think you can call it arbitrary. Instead its more a sign of the times. How many on the panel have seen more than 5 minutes of footage on Hein or Nevers? And how many got to see the entire careers of Warner and Reed? It's the reason the HOF votes/candidates have been somewhat strange to many of us in recent years. It is what it it, human nature.
That being said, IMO the best way to track these rankings and form an opinion is to first see how they are ranking players at each position. For instance, 5 QBs have made the list so far. I definitely think they are a little off on Warner. I think he should be somewhere between Tark and Namath. But the others are in the right spots so far. 4 LBs so far, I think they Joe Schmidt is the only one out of place, as he should be higher than Hendricks, and probably a few others still to come. No other positions have more than 3 so far, so still too early to call. I'd give it about an 85% grade so far if I were the professor here. Not too bad, I've seen WAY WAY worse. Its the top 20 that should really be the tough ones. But you have to give credit to the process NFL Films went through to create these rankings. I mean is there a better way? NO 2 people would have identical top 100's. Just too many variables...
I really like it so far, great production as always. 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>Actually I think the list will be pretty telling. Simply based on who the voters were and how the list was comprised.
"The blue-ribbon panel includes both current and former NFL coaches, players and front office personnel, as well as noted NFL media members, Hall of Fame voters and league historians including: Ernie Accorsi (former Giants General Manager), Cris Collinsworth (former player and NBC game analyst), Mike Brown (Bengals Owner), Pat Summerall (former NFL sportscaster), Dick Vermeil (former NFL head coach) and Peter King (NFL writer).
More than 250 players from the modern and pre-modern era, including current NFL players, were under consideration by the blue-ribbon panel for selection. The Top 100 will answer for the first time the question of whether players like Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Deacon Jones, Tom Brady, Barry Sanders, Ray Lewis and Jim Thorpe make the list and where they rank."
I certainly don't think you can call it arbitrary. Instead its more a sign of the times. How many on the panel have seen more than 5 minutes of footage on Hein or Nevers? And how many got to see the entire careers of Warner and Reed? It's the reason the HOF votes/candidates have been somewhat strange to many of us in recent years. It is what it it, human nature.
That being said, IMO the best way to track these rankings and form an opinion is to first see how they are ranking players at each position. For instance, 5 QBs have made the list so far. I definitely think they are a little off on Warner. I think he should be somewhere between Tark and Namath. But the others are in the right spots so far. 4 LBs so far, I think they Joe Schmidt is the only one out of place, as he should be higher than Hendricks, and probably a few others still to come. No other positions have more than 3 so far, so still too early to call. I'd give it about an 85% grade so far if I were the professor here. Not too bad, I've seen WAY WAY worse. Its the top 20 that should really be the tough ones. But you have to give credit to the process NFL Films went through to create these rankings. I mean is there a better way? NO 2 people would have identical top 100's. Just too many variables...
I really like it so far, great production as always. Jason >>
So far I feel the list represents a lack of research in regards to the older players. There seems to be an over reliance on first hand knowledge rather than film study, interviews, or other forms of printed media. For these reasons I find some of the rankings arbitrary and w/out merit.
I'm enjoying the actual show but the rankings bother me.
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> So far I feel the list represents a lack of research in regards to the older players. There seems to be an over reliance on first hand knowledge rather than film study, interviews, or other forms of printed media. For these reasons I find some of the rankings arbitrary and w/out merit.
I'm enjoying the actual show but the rankings bother me. >>
Not sure I follow...Hein and Nevers are the only pre-war players profiled so far. And for the most part, they are represented EXACTLY in the area they should be when discussing the top 100 of all-time. If you've seen or read otherwise, it may be a case of over-analyzation on your part. They were great for their era along with many others, but when you start stacking a list of the top 100 from all eras, I wouldn't rank them any higher, and don't know many who would. I've done as much study on the old timers that can possibly be done, using all forms of media. I've watched game film that hasn't been widely distributed. I've been to the Archive Center in Canton. What exactly are you reading or seeing that says they should be way higher than 89 and 96? Nevers was better than Marcus Allen? Hein had a better career than a Willie Davis or Joe Schmidt? I dont know, maybe you can post your top 100 here and I can go through it with a fine tooth comb and show you all of your errors? lol...These type lists are very subjective, because like I said, everyone has differing opinions. But most are at least somewhat similar. I doubt Jim Brown was 100 on anyones list, and I doubt Nevers was top 20 on anyones list, so to a point, the rankings aren't THAT far off. So far, there are a couple I would like to see moves maybe 10-15 spots, but again, I'd certainly give them at least an 85% grade thus far. Which is pretty good in my book.
Calling them arbitrary or random means you would be seeing WAY WAY off rankings. And so far, it has not been. Not even close.
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 have two HOF RCs for sale: 1950 Bowman Joe Perry #35 PSA 5 - $60.00 SOLD 1970 Topps O.J. Simpson #90 PSA 7 - $40.00 1935 Clarke Hinkle #24 PSA 1 - $100.00 SOLD
<< <i> So far I feel the list represents a lack of research in regards to the older players. There seems to be an over reliance on first hand knowledge rather than film study, interviews, or other forms of printed media. For these reasons I find some of the rankings arbitrary and w/out merit.
I'm enjoying the actual show but the rankings bother me. >>
Not sure I follow...Hein and Nevers are the only pre-war players profiled so far. And for the most part, they are represented EXACTLY in the area they should be when discussing the top 100 of all-time. If you've seen or read otherwise, it may be a case of over-analyzation on your part. They were great for their era along with many others, but when you start stacking a list of the top 100 from all eras, I wouldn't rank them any higher, and don't know many who would. I've done as much study on the old timers that can possibly be done, using all forms of media. I've watched game film that hasn't been widely distributed. I've been to the Archive Center in Canton. What exactly are you reading or seeing that says they should be way higher than 89 and 96? Nevers was better than Marcus Allen? Hein had a better career than a Willie Davis or Joe Schmidt? I dont know, maybe you can post your top 100 here and I can go through it with a fine tooth comb and show you all of your errors? lol...These type lists are very subjective, because like I said, everyone has differing opinions. But most are at least somewhat similar. I doubt Jim Brown was 100 on anyones list, and I doubt Nevers was top 20 on anyones list, so to a point, the rankings aren't THAT far off. So far, there are a couple I would like to see moves maybe 10-15 spots, but again, I'd certainly give them at least an 85% grade thus far. Which is pretty good in my book.
Calling them arbitrary or random means you would be seeing WAY WAY off rankings. And so far, it has not been. Not even close.
Jason >>
From what I have read both were the early standards for their respected positions. I think it speaks volumes that each was a member of the charter class of the HOF and recognized as two of the NFL's greatest players. I feel its very difficult and maybe impossible to compare players across time periods and IMO the list in some ways demonstrates this by placing two of the league's all time greats so low. I almost wish the show was set-up as the top 100 players w/out the rankings.
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.
From what I have read both were the early standards for their respected positions. I think it speaks volumes that each was a member of the charter class of the HOF and recognized as two of the NFL's greatest players. I feel its very difficult and maybe impossible to compare players across time periods and IMO the list in some ways demonstrates this by placing two of the league's all time greats so low. I almost wish the show was set-up as the top 100 players w/out the rankings. >>
Then the casual fan wouldn't watch it! lol
Try this..Next time your hanging around some guys at work, or friends that aren't hardcore football fans..Ask them if they really think Troy Aikman was a great QB. Then ask them how good was Roger Staubach...GUARANTEED the discussion will turn to which was better and why one was better or worse than the other. This is a comparison world. And ranking the top 100 players makes it FUN, and not just a history lesson. There are plenty of DVD's and whatnot out there that are history lessons. Maybe those are more for you. I like seeing the comparisons and because I totally agree with the method in which NFL Films arrived at these rankings. IMO, it's even better than the HOF Committees methods. There have been MANY top 100 rankings through the years. This one id the most up-to-date and so far one of the most accurate I have seen. And I base that opinion on my own knowledge and expertise of the subject. (No I am not the be all, end all..Just one man's opinion that is based on multiple hours over many years of studying the history of the game and its players)..
Prime example, just look at the FAN rankings..Hein and Nevers aren't in the top 100, QB Steve Young #13...All-time!..So you can see, that actually used experts in the field and not just some random idiots (like a few of the HOF voters...lol)
Also, the Charter class was in 1963. What it really meant is that they were two of the greatest players from 1919-1963...Thats it..In the days when Pro Football wasn't considered a serious sport, wasn't on TV, wasn't followed anywhere NEAR what it is today. Does it mean they are better than players who came after 1963? No. Also, I've never heard Ernie Nevers called the standard bearer of the RB position even for his era. Great player, but it was his impact on the popularity of the game at that point of the NFL's history that is his calling card. I've never watched a second of his game film and said to myself, now that's the best runner I've seen from those days...Hein, yeah..He was the best Center of his day because he essentially invented the position as we know it. But, I'll bet you won't see many other Centers ranked above him. And the ones you might will also be considered the greatest of their eras.
Rankings are awesome so far. 85% dead on for my taste and that is really solid in my book. It's a must see. 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.
From what I have read both were the early standards for their respected positions. I think it speaks volumes that each was a member of the charter class of the HOF and recognized as two of the NFL's greatest players. I feel its very difficult and maybe impossible to compare players across time periods and IMO the list in some ways demonstrates this by placing two of the league's all time greats so low. I almost wish the show was set-up as the top 100 players w/out the rankings. >>
Then the casual fan wouldn't watch it! lol
Try this..Next time your hanging around some guys at work, or friends that aren't hardcore football fans..Ask them if they really think Troy Aikman was a great QB. Then ask them how good was Roger Staubach...GUARANTEED the discussion will turn to which was better and why one was better or worse than the other. This is a comparison world. And ranking the top 100 players makes it FUN, and not just a history lesson. There are plenty of DVD's and whatnot out there that are history lessons. Maybe those are more for you. I like seeing the comparisons and because I totally agree with the method in which NFL Films arrived at these rankings. IMO, it's even better than the HOF Committees methods. There have been MANY top 100 rankings through the years. This one id the most up-to-date and so far one of the most accurate I have seen. And I base that opinion on my own knowledge and expertise of the subject. (No I am not the be all, end all..Just one man's opinion that is based on multiple hours over many years of studying the history of the game and its players)..
Prime example, just look at the FAN rankings..Hein and Nevers aren't in the top 100, QB Steve Young #13...All-time!..So you can see, that actually used experts in the field and not just some random idiots (like a few of the HOF voters...lol)
Also, the Charter class was in 1963. What it really meant is that they were two of the greatest players from 1919-1963...Thats it..In the days when Pro Football wasn't considered a serious sport, wasn't on TV, wasn't followed anywhere NEAR what it is today. Does it mean they are better than players who came after 1963? No. Also, I've never heard Ernie Nevers called the standard bearer of the RB position even for his era. Great player, but it was his impact on the popularity of the game at that point of the NFL's history that is his calling card. I've never watched a second of his game film and said to myself, now that's the best runner I've seen from those days...Hein, yeah..He was the best Center of his day because he essentially invented the position as we know it. But, I'll bet you won't see many other Centers ranked above him. And the ones you might will also be considered the greatest of their eras.
Rankings are awesome so far. 85% dead on for my taste and that is really solid in my book. It's a must see. Jason >>
I agree that the rankings create interest and tend to lead to a discussion afterwards. I also recognize that an unranked list would not be everyone.
I didn't mean to link Nevers w/ the running back or half back position but as a FB. In his brief career he was named All Pro each year and proved to be a pretty good scorer. He was also known for having a great all around game (Pop Warner suggested he was on Thorpe's level) When I look at these things I see a player who established himself as the league's first great FB. I'll feel better about Hein and Nevers if I don't see many other players from the 20's and 30's ranked higher.
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.
Yeah, I doubt we will see many more at all. You have to look at how many decade this game has been around. The top 100 list is comprised of the best from each era, its just that we are taking a BUNCH of decades/eras. And there's only room for 100.
FB/HB/RB, all fall into the same category. Specifically from the 20's/30's when the FB was the primary ball carrier. Yes, Nevers was one of the best from his era. But so are all these other guys on the list. They are tough to compare, but that's what makes it interesting.
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's nice to see the break down isn't all skill positions, although QBs still lead the way with 6. Here's the break down after 40 players: QB: 6 WR: 4 RB: 7 (includes FB) OL: 7 TE: 2 DL: 4 LB: 5 DB: 5
Still twice as many Offensive players than defensive.
Sorry to interrupt the Sports Talk forum going here about sports cards again...
Congratulations to my local collector friend Art for moving up in the current rankings. Art is dedicated to collecting Football HOF RCs, and he just added a number of cards to his collection. One of them is the latest of many cards that I've sold to him. I like that Art provides scans of his cards, and descriptions for many. Lookin' good Art; thanks for sharing. Check out his cards on the Registry; he's up to 26th in the current rankings.
<< <i>Sorry to interrupt the Sports Talk forum going here about sports cards again...
Congratulations to my local collector friend Art for moving up in the current rankings. Art is dedicated to collecting Football HOF RCs, and he just added a number of cards to his collection. One of them is the latest of many cards that I've sold to him. I like that Art provides scans of his cards, and descriptions for many. Lookin' good Art; thanks for sharing. Check out his cards on the Registry; he's up to 26th in the current rankings.
I bought Art's PSA 6 Gale Sayers to help fund his purchase. I have bought a few things from Art. Great guy :-)
While we're on the subject of cards again , I need the following to complete my 1970+ run if anyone has any for sale:
1970 Topps Jan Stenerud PSA 9 1970 Topps Alan Page PSA 9 1970 Topps Lem Barney PSA 9 1971 Topps Roger Wehrli PSA 8 1971 Topps Joe Greene PSA 8 1971 Topps Charlie Sanders PSA 8 1971 Topps Willie Lanier PSA 9 1972 Topps Ted Hendricks PSA 9 1972 Topps Ron Yary PSA 9 1972 Topps Emmitt Thomas PSA 9 1972 Topps Rayfield Wright PSA 9 1973 Topps Art Shell PSA 9 1973 Topps Dan Dierdorf PSA 9 1977 Topps Mike Haynes PSA 9
"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."
Recently there have been some arguments for what card is the true rookie for our sets, (Seau comes to mind)
For the 2000's what are the "best" sets for us to start buying ahead of their enshrinement? 2010? Which set? 2009? Stafford, Laurinaitis etc 2008? Chris Johnson, Jake Long 2007? Joe Thomas, AP, Patrick Willis, Revis 2006? Mario Williams, 2005? Aaron Rodgers, DeMarcus Ware, 2004? Larry Fitzgerald, 2003? Leaf Rookie and Stars (Gates) Topps Chrome 2002? Topps Chrome 2001? Topps Chrome
I looked at the HOF modern set and for 2001, 02, 03 it is Topps Chrome. If Topps Chrome did not make one, what set do we use for each year. And now in 2010, what is THE set to collect?
If we've learned anything from trying to attempt to pick which card will be added to a HOF set in the future, it is buyer beware...There are no "it" sets any longer. Different players have their top rookies in various sets in any given year. Do your best to locate the most popular(valuable) rookie card of each player...Make sure you subtract all the auto, jersey, game used stuff...Then if it's individually numbered lower than /999, well you're rolling the dice on that as well...999 we know (2001 Tomlinson) is allowed, no clue if PSA will ever agree to go lower. I wouldn't ever vote anything on lower than /999, but that's because I value the popularity of the HOF sets and don't want to see collectors shy away because we have cards number to /100 that simply not enough exist for everyone to complete the set.
Best of luck in what you find. Feel free to post it here, but know that if you make a wrong call, someone will prolly be pissed at you down the road for telling them the wrong card. lol
Our next vote will be modern HOF set additions in January. You might see some 2001-2005 rookies in that vote, and that will give us a jump start in at least deciding that players OFFICIAL card. There is no debate once it makes it onto the Future HOF sets. PSA crosses those over to the regular HOF set automatically upon induction.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
The Hall of Fame released the preliminary list of 2011 HOF candidates on September 13th. Doesn't really reveal much as there are 114 people on it, but here it is if anyone's interested:
"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."
If we've learned anything from trying to attempt to pick which card will be added to a HOF set in the future, it is buyer beware...There are no "it" sets any longer. Different players have their top rookies in various sets in any given year. Do your best to locate the most popular(valuable) rookie card of each player...Make sure you subtract all the auto, jersey, game used stuff...Then if it's individually numbered lower than /999, well you're rolling the dice on that as well...999 we know (2001 Tomlinson) is allowed, no clue if PSA will ever agree to go lower. I wouldn't ever vote anything on lower than /999, but that's because I value the popularity of the HOF sets and don't want to see collectors shy away because we have cards number to /100 that simply not enough exist for everyone to complete the set.
Best of luck in what you find. Feel free to post it here, but know that if you make a wrong call, someone will prolly be pissed at you down the road for telling them the wrong card. lol
Our next vote will be modern HOF set additions in January. You might see some 2001-2005 rookies in that vote, and that will give us a jump start in at least deciding that players OFFICIAL card. There is no debate once it makes it onto the Future HOF sets. PSA crosses those over to the regular HOF set automatically upon induction.
Jason >>
Jason I do agree with you, no cards #'d under 999. I will need to do a bunch of research and let you all know. Gimmie a bit but if we start this now maybe we can narrow down some of the players now.
Another thing to keep in mind when it comes to getting head starts...
Card values change. Prime example, Terrell Davis. If you got a head start on his rookie, you probably bought the 1995 Select Certified. But by the time we added TD to the Future HOF set, it was 1995 SP as his #1 RC...
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>Another thing to keep in mind when it comes to getting head starts...
Card values change. Prime example, Terrell Davis. If you got a head start on his rookie, you probably bought the 1995 Select Certified. But by the time we added TD to the Future HOF set, it was 1995 SP as his #1 RC...
Jason >>
Yup, that was the first one I remember.
My opinion is the keep it consistent. Topps Chrome is the most recent consistent one after it took over for SP. I am most curious about the 2010 since the contract change with the NFL.
<< <i>Another thing to keep in mind when it comes to getting head starts...
Card values change. Prime example, Terrell Davis. If you got a head start on his rookie, you probably bought the 1995 Select Certified. But by the time we added TD to the Future HOF set, it was 1995 SP as his #1 RC...
Jason >>
Yup, that was the first one I remember.
My opinion is the keep it consistent. Topps Chrome is the most recent consistent one after it took over for SP. I am most curious about the 2010 since the contract change with the NFL. >>
Consistency is nice, but the problem is, Topps Chrome isn't always the players most valuable/popular RC...Example, Jason Witten. He has a NON Autograph 2003 SP Authentic that is worth way more than his 2003 Topps Chrome. You're really going to have to go player by player, or your risk of purchasing cards that will never be added to the Registry rookie sets increases.
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 think I'll wait until PSA tells me which cards I have to buy for my collection....... >>
Good point. Or you can collect whatever rookies you want and not worry about what PSA does with the Registry. Either line of thinking will cause much less stress on what shouldn't be a stressful environment (a hobby)...
Little birdy told me today that a major HOF RC collection is about to be broken up and sold off (no not mine, sorry fellas..lol). So if anyone has been saving up, get ready. If you haven't, start saving. If you know anyone who is interested in starting this set, it will be a great time for them to jump in and get a major dent right off the bat.
I don't know for sure what the marketing strategy will be, but I'm certain most of us will notice when the chips start to fall.
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.
Little birdy told me today that a major HOF RC collection is about to be broken up and sold off (no not mine, sorry fellas..lol). So if anyone has been saving up, get ready. If you haven't, start saving. If you know anyone who is interested in starting this set, it will be a great time for them to jump in and get a major dent right off the bat. Jason >>
Must be time to turn the clocks back again, Ive heard this every year around this time for the last two years. I'll believe it when I see the set retired and get an email from Mint State.
Must be time to turn the clocks back again, Ive heard this every year around this time for the last two years. I'll believe it when I see the set retired and get an email from Mint State. >>
Good 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.
Does anyone know the whereabouts of the one-and-only 1948 Leaf Chuck Bednarik RC graded PSA 8? I know if sold three years ago via a Goodwin auction for $38K here:
My collecting buddy Squires & I were recently corresponding about "dream cards", and it led me to this question. I also see that PreWarCardCollector has a PSA 6 Bednarik RC offered right now. Even though Concrete Charlie is donning his Penn duds on the card, this may be the most valuable piece of Eagles-related cardboard extant.
Some big time HOF RC's selling in the next few days on Ebay. PWCC has several high end cards including much sought after Largent psa 10, Just Collect has a 48 Bowman Pihos and Wojo in PSA 8.
I dont think Ive ever seen this many big cards for sale at once.
Joe, your sig line creeps me out, man....very effective.
I've got snipes on a couple of the PWCC cards, including one being offered by our good friend from Anchorage. It's definitely nice to finally see some of these cards become available, it seems like we've not had a very good offering of cards from this set for the last few months. Let's see some "Updated" tags on these sets, people!
"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."
It takes little more than a casual glance to see that this set's #1 ranked collection doesn't exhibit the typical signs of breakup mode. It appears that the set just added PWCC's elite 1952 Bowman Large Ollie Matson PSA 8.5 (POP 1, none higher).
Hopefully everyone had a chance to land some of the unusually strong recent eBay offerings for this set.
_________________________________________
I wonder if anyone else finds this remarkable? Of the 109 active Football HOF Rookie card sets, a grand total of three are shown as complete on the Registry. Three.
I was just on the F.B. HOF registry and was wondering way so many of the collections don't display scans. Or just a few scans, espically our BIG DOG's. This seems common through out all registry's with some of the top ranked collections. I love looking at card's and would love to see some of these collections in all their GLORY. I truly wish everyone was required to add the scans when participating in the registry. Keith Weinhold and I have often discussed why some people chose not to. Not sure maybe don't know how to(Doubt this)?? Afraid to reveal the Serial #ers?? Or I think maybe just to many cards and it can be a time consuming task??? I personally would not see my cards that often if it weren't for the registry. Some reside in a box's and some are locked up. I would image this true for others. And with all the time we spend on the computer now a days their just a few clicks away. Well I'd like to thanks Jas24 for his highest ranked F.B. hof registry with scan's and wish their were more to view.
<< <i>I was just on the F.B. HOF registry and was wondering way so many of the collections don't display scans. Or just a few scans, espically our BIG DOG's. This seems common through out all registry's with some of the top ranked collections. I love looking at card's and would love to see some of these collections in all their GLORY. I truly wish everyone was required to add the scans when participating in the registry. Keith Weinhold and I have often discussed why some people chose not to. Not sure maybe don't know how to(Doubt this)?? Afraid to reveal the Serial #ers?? Or I think maybe just to many cards and it can be a time consuming task??? I personally would not see my cards that often if it weren't for the registry. Some reside in a box's and some are locked up. I would image this true for others. And with all the time we spend on the computer now a days their just a few clicks away. Well I'd like to thanks Jas24 for his highest ranked F.B. hof registry with scan's and wish their were more to view.
>>
i agree i wish more people would. i do my best but with all the items i have it does get time consuming, so some sets just dont get photos. i do keep up with my HOF auto'd card set and my favre ticket collection. the others i do my best to get around to them when i have the time. i have nearly all scanned and usually do so when they arrive from psa. but then i have to rename them and load them up one by one. not bad for a 10 card set but 200+ card sets are a time killer.
some people are scared of having the scans stolen and used in fake auctions. other dont even display their sets at all out of the fear that the cards they really need or might upgrade would drive up the price.
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
For me as soon as I rip a card out of the mailer I scan it and add it to the registry. Scanning my cards is half the fun. I like showing my cards to the guys at work. I get a kick out of the old timers that remember the early 70's and 60's cards and say I had that card when I was a kid.
some people are scared of having the scans stolen and used in fake auctions. other dont even display their sets at all out of the fear that the cards they really need or might upgrade would drive up the price.
Huh, that's a interesting take that I hadn't cosidered. Thanks for the feedback.
I have even thought I would pay to see some of those high ranking sets with scans. Like flight4oldDC. A museum fee?? Has anyone beside's himself seen the complete collection?? Any other take's on why no scans?? So how ofton do you view your collection if not on the registry??
As Keith mentioned flight4oldDC dosen't seem to be going anywhere. It's just getting stronger.
<< <i>. Well I'd like to thanks Jas24 for his highest ranked F.B. hof registry with scan's and wish their were more to view.
>>
Last time I looked, I have scans of my cards up Art .... Granted, I only tend to scan the bigger cards that I dont want an upgrade on or that I think are cool. After all, No one cares about seeing an 89 score Aikman card, or a PSA 8 65 Philly whoever, but they do want to see all the chicles and leafs
Ive heard people say they dont allow public viewing of their sets because of sellers driving the price up of cards they need, or people stealing scans. Ive gotten more gracious emails from people with cards I need than the other end of the spectrum, so I leave them open for viewing. As far as scans being stolen, thats none of my business if someone is dumb enough to buy a card without doing their homework then so be it. Ive had people give me heads up before that a card I own is on ebay, but that hasnt happened in a few years.
Ah, yes Joe. I'm sorry I did not mention your # 2 ranked collection. And thank you for the scans you do provide. Some stunning high grade antiquities. That are virtual works of art. Awesome to view. But I guess I'm thanking Jasp24 for his effort of offering scans of all his cards. As we know their are all levels of collector's some collecting high grade card's some mid grade, as do the cards very within a grade of eye appeal centering and print quality. That's what make it interesting to view the registry and scans in my opinion. You get a little of everything. And I think one can put together a attractive collection even with mid grade card's. And the flip side you can put together a high grade collection but the cards could lack eye appeal. But how would you know if you can't view them. As for the 89 score you got me Joe I don't click on those much. But the 65 Phila while you can say theirs not much to catch the eye as far as color or design I do view them for centering and print quality even in a psa 8. I guess this is cause I've decided to collect them in a psa 8 and I'm still shopping for them. I use the registry as a reference. I guess if you've achieve the grade you wanted already and have moved on to chasing other cards, you probably wouldn't want view them anymore. I thank those that post scans on the registry. It assist's me as a reference in my collection. And I enjoy viewing them.
Thanks Art. Mostly I have all my cards scanned so I can view them away from home or without breaking into the big gun safe at home...lol
That being said, I'm a little behind in scanning new additions since moving to Hawaii in late July. Just got all my stuff last month and just havent had time to sit down and catch up on the 10-15 cards Ive purchased recently. Of course, having a view like this from my back lanai (Hawaiian for porch) doesn't exactly send me running to the scanner...
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.
There's a very simple reason why I don't have scans of my cards. I have no idea how to properly scan the cards and then upload them onto the registry. Sounds insane but it's true. I'm sure I could figure it out but it's in the realm of "can't be bothered" for now.
I have this dream of taking a couple weeks off work and focusing on nothing but cards -- scanning everything properly, updating the registry, sending in some PSA/SGC subs on raw and/or bumps, updating my want lists, researching obscure HOFers or those that belong there, foreign cards. I've had this dream for a few years now -- pretty soon it'll be recategorized as a fantasy.
I will get there.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
I wonder if anyone else's mouth fell agape with some of Mile High Card Company's transcendent offerings in their current auction, which ends next week. There are some cards that have not been publicly offered in the last few years, if they have ever been offered publicly at all.
Some of the more dazzling are rare, low POP Mint PSA 9s where none are graded higher:
1958 Topps Jim Brown RC (POP 5) I wonder if this will reach the $32K mine sold for privately earlier this year. This is a different card. 1952 Bowman Large Frank Gifford RC (POP 5) It's centered. If a lesser-centered PSA 8 can reach $2K, could this approach $10K? 1948 Bowman Alex Wojciechowicz RC (POP 2) Well centered & remarkably scarce in this grade. (I once owned this very card.)
There's more. Spectacular doesn't even describe this. It's unprecedented. It will be fun to see what happens!
Hello and all. FIGHT4OLDDC here. I know Ive huffed and puffed and made mention of this before, but by the end of next week, once Ive added a few more things.... I am going to retire most of my sets.
I have some personal issues that will force me to bow out for some period of time.
That is to say - Im not leaving the hobby - and I will attempt to keep some of my prized cards (household names, prewar low pop stuff), but life has brought me where it has brought me and I have no choice but to bow out. I will also buy important cards from time to time, but for the most part - its time to let go and let these beauties rest in other hands.
I will be in touch with the board here by mid December and run a mini Buy It Now on the Board first before going to auction houses (which will likely consist mostly of MINT STATE and Memory Lane).
I am not a "distressed seller" so I cant offer you any bargains. I am liquidating but will not sell unless the price is right. I paid top dollar for most of these cards and will expect the same in return. Anyway - I thought Id give you all a heads up. This is real. Its coming and details will follow no later than 12/15 at which time I will give several days notice and then post a BIN auction on the board with prices a fews days later - date and time certain so everyone has a fair shot.
THANK YOU TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR MAKING THIS THE MOST ENJOYABLE PURSUIT ONE COULD HAVE AS A HOBBY.
Jon Isaacson jondisaacson@gmail.com Hail To The Redskins - Hail Victory - Braves on the Warpath - FIGHT4OLDDC
Comments
<< <i>
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. >>
Well, that would assume that all of the voters apply logic to their votes. When in fact, only about half of them do. The other half either vote for the guy who gets a good presentation, or whoever their buddies want them to vote for. Far too many inexperienced voters in the room right now. It's impossible to predict.
It's almost like the senior committee is TRYING to find only one HOFer from the senior pool each year and has been using the 2nd spot almost as a pawn to help the other guy. It's weird, and I just don't get it. Cause like last year, when it seemed Floyd Little was the pawn, he still got the votes due to a great presentation in the meeting...
BAH HUMBUG! lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Interesting observations from NFL Films guru Steve Sabol. Especially the paragraph on Dick Butkus which ties in to our discussion last month.
Link to Story
Jason >>
So what does everyone think of the list so far?
100. Joe Namath
99. Michael Strahan
98. Lee Roy Selmon
97. Derrick Brooks
96. Mel Hein
95. Larry Allen
94. Lenny Moore
93. Sam Huff
92. Michael Irvin
91. Fran Tarkenton
90. Warner
89. Nevers
88. Reed
87. Hirsch
86. W.Davis
85. M.Allen
84. J.Schmidt
83. Van Brocklin
82. Hendricks
81. Young
I've enjoyed the pieces on the players but I believe the list is inaccurate. Nevers and Hein only rated in the 80's and 90's? Warner and Reed even on the list? I can see where they are headed w/ the rankings. I'll continue to enjoy the programs but the list is pretty arbitrary IMO.
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.
"The blue-ribbon panel includes both current and former NFL coaches, players and front office personnel, as well as noted NFL media members, Hall of Fame voters and league historians including: Ernie Accorsi (former Giants General Manager), Cris Collinsworth (former player and NBC game analyst), Mike Brown (Bengals Owner), Pat Summerall (former NFL sportscaster), Dick Vermeil (former NFL head coach) and Peter King (NFL writer).
More than 250 players from the modern and pre-modern era, including current NFL players, were under consideration by the blue-ribbon panel for selection. The Top 100 will answer for the first time the question of whether players like Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Deacon Jones, Tom Brady, Barry Sanders, Ray Lewis and Jim Thorpe make the list and where they rank."
I certainly don't think you can call it arbitrary. Instead its more a sign of the times. How many on the panel have seen more than 5 minutes of footage on Hein or Nevers? And how many got to see the entire careers of Warner and Reed? It's the reason the HOF votes/candidates have been somewhat strange to many of us in recent years. It is what it it, human nature.
That being said, IMO the best way to track these rankings and form an opinion is to first see how they are ranking players at each position. For instance, 5 QBs have made the list so far. I definitely think they are a little off on Warner. I think he should be somewhere between Tark and Namath. But the others are in the right spots so far. 4 LBs so far, I think they Joe Schmidt is the only one out of place, as he should be higher than Hendricks, and probably a few others still to come. No other positions have more than 3 so far, so still too early to call. I'd give it about an 85% grade so far if I were the professor here. Not too bad, I've seen WAY WAY worse. Its the top 20 that should really be the tough ones. But you have to give credit to the process NFL Films went through to create these rankings. I mean is there a better way? NO 2 people would have identical top 100's. Just too many variables...
I really like it so far, great production as always.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Actually I think the list will be pretty telling. Simply based on who the voters were and how the list was comprised.
"The blue-ribbon panel includes both current and former NFL coaches, players and front office personnel, as well as noted NFL media members, Hall of Fame voters and league historians including: Ernie Accorsi (former Giants General Manager), Cris Collinsworth (former player and NBC game analyst), Mike Brown (Bengals Owner), Pat Summerall (former NFL sportscaster), Dick Vermeil (former NFL head coach) and Peter King (NFL writer).
More than 250 players from the modern and pre-modern era, including current NFL players, were under consideration by the blue-ribbon panel for selection. The Top 100 will answer for the first time the question of whether players like Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Deacon Jones, Tom Brady, Barry Sanders, Ray Lewis and Jim Thorpe make the list and where they rank."
I certainly don't think you can call it arbitrary. Instead its more a sign of the times. How many on the panel have seen more than 5 minutes of footage on Hein or Nevers? And how many got to see the entire careers of Warner and Reed? It's the reason the HOF votes/candidates have been somewhat strange to many of us in recent years. It is what it it, human nature.
That being said, IMO the best way to track these rankings and form an opinion is to first see how they are ranking players at each position. For instance, 5 QBs have made the list so far. I definitely think they are a little off on Warner. I think he should be somewhere between Tark and Namath. But the others are in the right spots so far. 4 LBs so far, I think they Joe Schmidt is the only one out of place, as he should be higher than Hendricks, and probably a few others still to come. No other positions have more than 3 so far, so still too early to call. I'd give it about an 85% grade so far if I were the professor here. Not too bad, I've seen WAY WAY worse. Its the top 20 that should really be the tough ones. But you have to give credit to the process NFL Films went through to create these rankings. I mean is there a better way? NO 2 people would have identical top 100's. Just too many variables...
I really like it so far, great production as always.
Jason >>
So far I feel the list represents a lack of research in regards to the older players. There seems to be an over reliance on first hand knowledge rather than film study, interviews, or other forms of printed media. For these reasons I find some of the rankings arbitrary and w/out merit.
I'm enjoying the actual show but the rankings bother me.
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>
So far I feel the list represents a lack of research in regards to the older players. There seems to be an over reliance on first hand knowledge rather than film study, interviews, or other forms of printed media. For these reasons I find some of the rankings arbitrary and w/out merit.
I'm enjoying the actual show but the rankings bother me. >>
Not sure I follow...Hein and Nevers are the only pre-war players profiled so far. And for the most part, they are represented EXACTLY in the area they should be when discussing the top 100 of all-time. If you've seen or read otherwise, it may be a case of over-analyzation on your part. They were great for their era along with many others, but when you start stacking a list of the top 100 from all eras, I wouldn't rank them any higher, and don't know many who would. I've done as much study on the old timers that can possibly be done, using all forms of media. I've watched game film that hasn't been widely distributed. I've been to the Archive Center in Canton. What exactly are you reading or seeing that says they should be way higher than 89 and 96? Nevers was better than Marcus Allen? Hein had a better career than a Willie Davis or Joe Schmidt? I dont know, maybe you can post your top 100 here and I can go through it with a fine tooth comb and show you all of your errors? lol...These type lists are very subjective, because like I said, everyone has differing opinions. But most are at least somewhat similar. I doubt Jim Brown was 100 on anyones list, and I doubt Nevers was top 20 on anyones list, so to a point, the rankings aren't THAT far off. So far, there are a couple I would like to see moves maybe 10-15 spots, but again, I'd certainly give them at least an 85% grade thus far. Which is pretty good in my book.
Calling them arbitrary or random means you would be seeing WAY WAY off rankings. And so far, it has not been. Not even close.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I have two HOF RCs for sale:
1950 Bowman Joe Perry #35 PSA 5 - $60.00 SOLD
1970 Topps O.J. Simpson #90 PSA 7 - $40.00
1935 Clarke Hinkle #24 PSA 1 - $100.00 SOLD
Prices include shipping.
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>
So far I feel the list represents a lack of research in regards to the older players. There seems to be an over reliance on first hand knowledge rather than film study, interviews, or other forms of printed media. For these reasons I find some of the rankings arbitrary and w/out merit.
I'm enjoying the actual show but the rankings bother me. >>
Not sure I follow...Hein and Nevers are the only pre-war players profiled so far. And for the most part, they are represented EXACTLY in the area they should be when discussing the top 100 of all-time. If you've seen or read otherwise, it may be a case of over-analyzation on your part. They were great for their era along with many others, but when you start stacking a list of the top 100 from all eras, I wouldn't rank them any higher, and don't know many who would. I've done as much study on the old timers that can possibly be done, using all forms of media. I've watched game film that hasn't been widely distributed. I've been to the Archive Center in Canton. What exactly are you reading or seeing that says they should be way higher than 89 and 96? Nevers was better than Marcus Allen? Hein had a better career than a Willie Davis or Joe Schmidt? I dont know, maybe you can post your top 100 here and I can go through it with a fine tooth comb and show you all of your errors? lol...These type lists are very subjective, because like I said, everyone has differing opinions. But most are at least somewhat similar. I doubt Jim Brown was 100 on anyones list, and I doubt Nevers was top 20 on anyones list, so to a point, the rankings aren't THAT far off. So far, there are a couple I would like to see moves maybe 10-15 spots, but again, I'd certainly give them at least an 85% grade thus far. Which is pretty good in my book.
Calling them arbitrary or random means you would be seeing WAY WAY off rankings. And so far, it has not been. Not even close.
Jason >>
From what I have read both were the early standards for their respected positions. I think it speaks volumes that each was a member of the charter class of the HOF and recognized as two of the NFL's greatest players. I feel its very difficult and maybe impossible to compare players across time periods and IMO the list in some ways demonstrates this by placing two of the league's all time greats so low. I almost wish the show was set-up as the top 100 players w/out the rankings.
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>
From what I have read both were the early standards for their respected positions. I think it speaks volumes that each was a member of the charter class of the HOF and recognized as two of the NFL's greatest players. I feel its very difficult and maybe impossible to compare players across time periods and IMO the list in some ways demonstrates this by placing two of the league's all time greats so low. I almost wish the show was set-up as the top 100 players w/out the rankings. >>
Then the casual fan wouldn't watch it! lol
Try this..Next time your hanging around some guys at work, or friends that aren't hardcore football fans..Ask them if they really think Troy Aikman was a great QB. Then ask them how good was Roger Staubach...GUARANTEED the discussion will turn to which was better and why one was better or worse than the other. This is a comparison world. And ranking the top 100 players makes it FUN, and not just a history lesson. There are plenty of DVD's and whatnot out there that are history lessons. Maybe those are more for you. I like seeing the comparisons and because I totally agree with the method in which NFL Films arrived at these rankings. IMO, it's even better than the HOF Committees methods. There have been MANY top 100 rankings through the years. This one id the most up-to-date and so far one of the most accurate I have seen. And I base that opinion on my own knowledge and expertise of the subject. (No I am not the be all, end all..Just one man's opinion that is based on multiple hours over many years of studying the history of the game and its players)..
Prime example, just look at the FAN rankings..Hein and Nevers aren't in the top 100, QB Steve Young #13...All-time!..So you can see, that actually used experts in the field and not just some random idiots (like a few of the HOF voters...lol)
Also, the Charter class was in 1963. What it really meant is that they were two of the greatest players from 1919-1963...Thats it..In the days when Pro Football wasn't considered a serious sport, wasn't on TV, wasn't followed anywhere NEAR what it is today. Does it mean they are better than players who came after 1963? No. Also, I've never heard Ernie Nevers called the standard bearer of the RB position even for his era. Great player, but it was his impact on the popularity of the game at that point of the NFL's history that is his calling card. I've never watched a second of his game film and said to myself, now that's the best runner I've seen from those days...Hein, yeah..He was the best Center of his day because he essentially invented the position as we know it. But, I'll bet you won't see many other Centers ranked above him. And the ones you might will also be considered the greatest of their eras.
Rankings are awesome so far. 85% dead on for my taste and that is really solid in my book. It's a must see.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
From what I have read both were the early standards for their respected positions. I think it speaks volumes that each was a member of the charter class of the HOF and recognized as two of the NFL's greatest players. I feel its very difficult and maybe impossible to compare players across time periods and IMO the list in some ways demonstrates this by placing two of the league's all time greats so low. I almost wish the show was set-up as the top 100 players w/out the rankings. >>
Then the casual fan wouldn't watch it! lol
Try this..Next time your hanging around some guys at work, or friends that aren't hardcore football fans..Ask them if they really think Troy Aikman was a great QB. Then ask them how good was Roger Staubach...GUARANTEED the discussion will turn to which was better and why one was better or worse than the other. This is a comparison world. And ranking the top 100 players makes it FUN, and not just a history lesson. There are plenty of DVD's and whatnot out there that are history lessons. Maybe those are more for you. I like seeing the comparisons and because I totally agree with the method in which NFL Films arrived at these rankings. IMO, it's even better than the HOF Committees methods. There have been MANY top 100 rankings through the years. This one id the most up-to-date and so far one of the most accurate I have seen. And I base that opinion on my own knowledge and expertise of the subject. (No I am not the be all, end all..Just one man's opinion that is based on multiple hours over many years of studying the history of the game and its players)..
Prime example, just look at the FAN rankings..Hein and Nevers aren't in the top 100, QB Steve Young #13...All-time!..So you can see, that actually used experts in the field and not just some random idiots (like a few of the HOF voters...lol)
Also, the Charter class was in 1963. What it really meant is that they were two of the greatest players from 1919-1963...Thats it..In the days when Pro Football wasn't considered a serious sport, wasn't on TV, wasn't followed anywhere NEAR what it is today. Does it mean they are better than players who came after 1963? No. Also, I've never heard Ernie Nevers called the standard bearer of the RB position even for his era. Great player, but it was his impact on the popularity of the game at that point of the NFL's history that is his calling card. I've never watched a second of his game film and said to myself, now that's the best runner I've seen from those days...Hein, yeah..He was the best Center of his day because he essentially invented the position as we know it. But, I'll bet you won't see many other Centers ranked above him. And the ones you might will also be considered the greatest of their eras.
Rankings are awesome so far. 85% dead on for my taste and that is really solid in my book. It's a must see.
Jason >>
I agree that the rankings create interest and tend to lead to a discussion afterwards. I also recognize that an unranked list would not be everyone.
I didn't mean to link Nevers w/ the running back or half back position but as a FB. In his brief career he was named All Pro each year and proved to be a pretty good scorer. He was also known for having a great all around game (Pop Warner suggested he was on Thorpe's level) When I look at these things I see a player who established himself as the league's first great FB. I'll feel better about Hein and Nevers if I don't see many other players from the 20's and 30's ranked higher.
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.
FB/HB/RB, all fall into the same category. Specifically from the 20's/30's when the FB was the primary ball carrier. Yes, Nevers was one of the best from his era. But so are all these other guys on the list. They are tough to compare, but that's what makes it interesting.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Here's the break down after 40 players:
QB: 6
WR: 4
RB: 7 (includes FB)
OL: 7
TE: 2
DL: 4
LB: 5
DB: 5
Still twice as many Offensive players than defensive.
link
Congratulations to my local collector friend Art for moving up in the current rankings. Art is dedicated to collecting Football HOF RCs, and he just added a number of cards to his collection. One of them is the latest of many cards that I've sold to him. I like that Art provides scans of his cards, and descriptions for many. Lookin' good Art; thanks for sharing. Check out his cards on the Registry; he's up to 26th in the current rankings.
<< <i>Sorry to interrupt the Sports Talk forum going here about sports cards again...
Congratulations to my local collector friend Art for moving up in the current rankings. Art is dedicated to collecting Football HOF RCs, and he just added a number of cards to his collection. One of them is the latest of many cards that I've sold to him. I like that Art provides scans of his cards, and descriptions for many. Lookin' good Art; thanks for sharing. Check out his cards on the Registry; he's up to 26th in the current rankings.
I bought Art's PSA 6 Gale Sayers to help fund his purchase. I have bought a few things from Art. Great guy :-)
1970 Topps Jan Stenerud PSA 9
1970 Topps Alan Page PSA 9
1970 Topps Lem Barney PSA 9
1971 Topps Roger Wehrli PSA 8
1971 Topps Joe Greene PSA 8
1971 Topps Charlie Sanders PSA 8
1971 Topps Willie Lanier PSA 9
1972 Topps Ted Hendricks PSA 9
1972 Topps Ron Yary PSA 9
1972 Topps Emmitt Thomas PSA 9
1972 Topps Rayfield Wright PSA 9
1973 Topps Art Shell PSA 9
1973 Topps Dan Dierdorf PSA 9
1977 Topps Mike Haynes PSA 9
For the 2000's what are the "best" sets for us to start buying ahead of their enshrinement?
2010? Which set?
2009? Stafford, Laurinaitis etc
2008? Chris Johnson, Jake Long
2007? Joe Thomas, AP, Patrick Willis, Revis
2006? Mario Williams,
2005? Aaron Rodgers, DeMarcus Ware,
2004? Larry Fitzgerald,
2003? Leaf Rookie and Stars (Gates) Topps Chrome
2002? Topps Chrome
2001? Topps Chrome
I looked at the HOF modern set and for 2001, 02, 03 it is Topps Chrome. If Topps Chrome did not make one, what set do we use for each year. And now in 2010, what is THE set to collect?
Thoughts?
<< <i>Any thoughts here? >>
If we've learned anything from trying to attempt to pick which card will be added to a HOF set in the future, it is buyer beware...There are no "it" sets any longer. Different players have their top rookies in various sets in any given year. Do your best to locate the most popular(valuable) rookie card of each player...Make sure you subtract all the auto, jersey, game used stuff...Then if it's individually numbered lower than /999, well you're rolling the dice on that as well...999 we know (2001 Tomlinson) is allowed, no clue if PSA will ever agree to go lower. I wouldn't ever vote anything on lower than /999, but that's because I value the popularity of the HOF sets and don't want to see collectors shy away because we have cards number to /100 that simply not enough exist for everyone to complete the set.
Best of luck in what you find. Feel free to post it here, but know that if you make a wrong call, someone will prolly be pissed at you down the road for telling them the wrong card. lol
Our next vote will be modern HOF set additions in January. You might see some 2001-2005 rookies in that vote, and that will give us a jump start in at least deciding that players OFFICIAL card. There is no debate once it makes it onto the Future HOF sets. PSA crosses those over to the regular HOF set automatically upon induction.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
2011 HOF Preliminay List
The list will be trimmed to 25 in mid November.
<< <i>
<< <i>Any thoughts here? >>
If we've learned anything from trying to attempt to pick which card will be added to a HOF set in the future, it is buyer beware...There are no "it" sets any longer. Different players have their top rookies in various sets in any given year. Do your best to locate the most popular(valuable) rookie card of each player...Make sure you subtract all the auto, jersey, game used stuff...Then if it's individually numbered lower than /999, well you're rolling the dice on that as well...999 we know (2001 Tomlinson) is allowed, no clue if PSA will ever agree to go lower. I wouldn't ever vote anything on lower than /999, but that's because I value the popularity of the HOF sets and don't want to see collectors shy away because we have cards number to /100 that simply not enough exist for everyone to complete the set.
Best of luck in what you find. Feel free to post it here, but know that if you make a wrong call, someone will prolly be pissed at you down the road for telling them the wrong card. lol
Our next vote will be modern HOF set additions in January. You might see some 2001-2005 rookies in that vote, and that will give us a jump start in at least deciding that players OFFICIAL card. There is no debate once it makes it onto the Future HOF sets. PSA crosses those over to the regular HOF set automatically upon induction.
Jason >>
Jason I do agree with you, no cards #'d under 999. I will need to do a bunch of research and let you all know. Gimmie a bit but if we start this now maybe we can narrow down some of the players now.
Thanks for the reply Jason.
Card values change. Prime example, Terrell Davis. If you got a head start on his rookie, you probably bought the 1995 Select Certified. But by the time we added TD to the Future HOF set, it was 1995 SP as his #1 RC...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Another thing to keep in mind when it comes to getting head starts...
Card values change. Prime example, Terrell Davis. If you got a head start on his rookie, you probably bought the 1995 Select Certified. But by the time we added TD to the Future HOF set, it was 1995 SP as his #1 RC...
Jason >>
Yup, that was the first one I remember.
My opinion is the keep it consistent. Topps Chrome is the most recent consistent one after it took over for SP. I am most curious about the 2010 since the contract change with the NFL.
<< <i>
<< <i>Another thing to keep in mind when it comes to getting head starts...
Card values change. Prime example, Terrell Davis. If you got a head start on his rookie, you probably bought the 1995 Select Certified. But by the time we added TD to the Future HOF set, it was 1995 SP as his #1 RC...
Jason >>
Yup, that was the first one I remember.
My opinion is the keep it consistent. Topps Chrome is the most recent consistent one after it took over for SP. I am most curious about the 2010 since the contract change with the NFL. >>
Consistency is nice, but the problem is, Topps Chrome isn't always the players most valuable/popular RC...Example, Jason Witten. He has a NON Autograph 2003 SP Authentic that is worth way more than his 2003 Topps Chrome. You're really going to have to go player by player, or your risk of purchasing cards that will never be added to the Registry rookie sets increases.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>I think I'll wait until PSA tells me which cards I have to buy for my collection.......
Good point. Or you can collect whatever rookies you want and not worry about what PSA does with the Registry. Either line of thinking will cause much less stress on what shouldn't be a stressful environment (a hobby)...
Little birdy told me today that a major HOF RC collection is about to be broken up and sold off (no not mine, sorry fellas..lol). So if anyone has been saving up, get ready. If you haven't, start saving. If you know anyone who is interested in starting this set, it will be a great time for them to jump in and get a major dent right off the bat.
I don't know for sure what the marketing strategy will be, but I'm certain most of us will notice when the chips start to fall.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
Little birdy told me today that a major HOF RC collection is about to be broken up and sold off (no not mine, sorry fellas..lol). So if anyone has been saving up, get ready. If you haven't, start saving. If you know anyone who is interested in starting this set, it will be a great time for them to jump in and get a major dent right off the bat.
Jason >>
Must be time to turn the clocks back again, Ive heard this every year around this time for the last two years. I'll believe it when I see the set retired and get an email from Mint State.
<< <i>
Must be time to turn the clocks back again, Ive heard this every year around this time for the last two years. I'll believe it when I see the set retired and get an email from Mint State. >>
Good point!
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Does anyone know the whereabouts of the one-and-only 1948 Leaf Chuck Bednarik RC graded PSA 8?
I know if sold three years ago via a Goodwin auction for $38K here:
http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/rare-football-card-sells-for-38561/
My collecting buddy Squires & I were recently corresponding about "dream cards", and it led me to this question.
I also see that PreWarCardCollector has a PSA 6 Bednarik RC offered right now.
Even though Concrete Charlie is donning his Penn duds on the card, this may be the most valuable piece of Eagles-related cardboard extant.
Love the fact that Chuck has both a cigar and a cigarette working while wearing a wedding band. . . Perhaps a bottle of scotch is in the other hand.
I dont think Ive ever seen this many big cards for sale at once.
I've got snipes on a couple of the PWCC cards, including one being offered by our good friend from Anchorage. It's definitely nice to finally see some of these cards become available, it seems like we've not had a very good offering of cards from this set for the last few months. Let's see some "Updated" tags on these sets, people!
Jasen
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Thanks
Doc
Chuckie B.
Hopefully everyone had a chance to land some of the unusually strong recent eBay offerings for this set.
_________________________________________
I wonder if anyone else finds this remarkable? Of the 109 active Football HOF Rookie card sets, a grand total of three are shown as complete on the Registry. Three.
I personally would not see my cards that often if it weren't for the registry. Some reside in a box's and some are locked up. I would image this true for others. And with all the time we spend on the computer now a days their just a few clicks away. Well I'd like to thanks Jas24 for his highest ranked F.B. hof registry with scan's and wish their were more to view.
COLLECTING THE HOFERS, ALL-TIME NINERS & STEELERS
<< <i>I was just on the F.B. HOF registry and was wondering way so many of the collections don't display scans. Or just a few scans, espically our BIG DOG's. This seems common through out all registry's with some of the top ranked collections. I love looking at card's and would love to see some of these collections in all their GLORY. I truly wish everyone was required to add the scans when participating in the registry. Keith Weinhold and I have often discussed why some people chose not to. Not sure maybe don't know how to(Doubt this)?? Afraid to reveal the Serial #ers?? Or I think maybe just to many cards and it can be a time consuming task???
I personally would not see my cards that often if it weren't for the registry. Some reside in a box's and some are locked up. I would image this true for others. And with all the time we spend on the computer now a days their just a few clicks away. Well I'd like to thanks Jas24 for his highest ranked F.B. hof registry with scan's and wish their were more to view.
>>
i agree i wish more people would. i do my best but with all the items i have it does get time consuming, so some sets just dont get photos. i do keep up with my HOF auto'd card set and my favre ticket collection. the others i do my best to get around to them when i have the time. i have nearly all scanned and usually do so when they arrive from psa. but then i have to rename them and load them up one by one. not bad for a 10 card set but 200+ card sets are a time killer.
some people are scared of having the scans stolen and used in fake auctions. other dont even display their sets at all out of the fear that the cards they really need or might upgrade would drive up the price.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Scanning my cards is half the fun.
I like showing my cards to the guys at work.
I get a kick out of the old timers that remember the early 70's and 60's cards and say I had that card when I was a kid.
Huh, that's a interesting take that I hadn't cosidered. Thanks for the feedback.
I have even thought I would pay to see some of those high ranking sets with scans. Like flight4oldDC. A museum fee??
Has anyone beside's himself seen the complete collection?? Any other take's on why no scans??
So how ofton do you view your collection if not on the registry??
As Keith mentioned flight4oldDC dosen't seem to be going anywhere. It's just getting stronger.
1971 Topps Terry Bradshaw PSA 7 or 8
1972 Topps Roger Staubach PSA 7 or 8
1958 Topps Jim Brown PSA 5 or better?
Please pm me if you do. With scan and price.
thanks
<< <i>. Well I'd like to thanks Jas24 for his highest ranked F.B. hof registry with scan's and wish their were more to view.
Last time I looked, I have scans of my cards up Art .... Granted, I only tend to scan the bigger cards that I dont want an upgrade on or that I think are cool. After all, No one cares about seeing an 89 score Aikman card, or a PSA 8 65 Philly whoever, but they do want to see all the chicles and leafs
Ive heard people say they dont allow public viewing of their sets because of sellers driving the price up of cards they need, or people stealing scans. Ive gotten more gracious emails from people with cards I need than the other end of the spectrum, so I leave them open for viewing. As far as scans being stolen, thats none of my business if someone is dumb enough to buy a card without doing their homework then so be it. Ive had people give me heads up before that a card I own is on ebay, but that hasnt happened in a few years.
(for JC
I'm all wet . . .
That being said, I'm a little behind in scanning new additions since moving to Hawaii in late July. Just got all my stuff last month and just havent had time to sit down and catch up on the 10-15 cards Ive purchased recently. Of course, having a view like this from my back lanai (Hawaiian for porch) doesn't exactly send me running to the scanner...
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I have this dream of taking a couple weeks off work and focusing on nothing but cards -- scanning everything properly, updating the registry, sending in some PSA/SGC subs on raw and/or bumps, updating my want lists, researching obscure HOFers or those that belong there, foreign cards. I've had this dream for a few years now -- pretty soon it'll be recategorized as a fantasy.
I will get there.
Some of the more dazzling are rare, low POP Mint PSA 9s where none are graded higher:
1958 Topps Jim Brown RC (POP 5) I wonder if this will reach the $32K mine sold for privately earlier this year. This is a different card.
1952 Bowman Large Frank Gifford RC (POP 5) It's centered. If a lesser-centered PSA 8 can reach $2K, could this approach $10K?
1948 Bowman Alex Wojciechowicz RC (POP 2) Well centered & remarkably scarce in this grade. (I once owned this very card.)
There's more. Spectacular doesn't even describe this. It's unprecedented. It will be fun to see what happens!
I have some personal issues that will force me to bow out for some period of time.
That is to say - Im not leaving the hobby - and I will attempt to keep some of my prized cards (household names, prewar low pop stuff), but life has brought me where it has brought me and I have no choice but to bow out. I will also buy important cards from time to time, but for the most part - its time to let go and let these beauties rest in other hands.
I will be in touch with the board here by mid December and run a mini Buy It Now on the Board first before going to auction houses (which will likely consist mostly of MINT STATE and Memory Lane).
I am not a "distressed seller" so I cant offer you any bargains. I am liquidating but will not sell unless the price is right. I paid top dollar for most of these cards and will expect the same in return. Anyway - I thought Id give you all a heads up. This is real. Its coming and details will follow no later than 12/15 at which time I will give several days notice and then post a BIN auction on the board with prices a fews days later - date and time certain so everyone has a fair shot.
THANK YOU TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR MAKING THIS THE MOST ENJOYABLE PURSUIT ONE COULD HAVE AS A HOBBY.
Jon Isaacson
jondisaacson@gmail.com
Hail To The Redskins - Hail Victory - Braves on the Warpath - FIGHT4OLDDC