finally getting back into this set after laying off of it for about a year. Let me know of any deals out there of extras any of you guys are looking to move.
Here is the first batch of my mini auctions. A lot more to come - but this represents some very high end duplicates.
Make me an offer. I will be using the usual sources to price the cards - so should you as you make an offer. Again, I am not desperate and will only sell at the high end the range. Better to pay top dollar to me than to an auction house plus their fees. All prices will include insured shipping. ut if you I accept checks or paypal - but if you pay via paypal, you must pay using the gift tab so I do not incur any fees.
All inquiries should be sent to jondisaacson@gmail.com
The rest of the sets, I will be sending in relabeling - Fight4OldDc collection and sell of more on the board before heading to ebay, auction houses (Mint State and Memory Lane mostly) etc.
All are PSA graded
1935 National Chicle Knute Rockne PSA 8 1948 Leaf Whitey Wistert PSA 6 1948 Leaf Whitey Wistert PSA 7 1948 Bowman Bulldog Turner PSA 8 1948 Leaf Sid Luckman Yellow Background PSA 7 1950 Bowman Tank Younger PSA 9 1952 Bowman Large Ollie Matson PSA 8 1955 Topps All American Ace Parker PSA 8 1961 Fleer Maxie Baughan PSA 5 (not a typo - won the wrong auction) 1965 Philadelphia Charley Taylor PSA 9 1965 Philadelphia Carl Eller PSA 9 1965 Philadelphia Paul Warlfield PSA 9 1965 Philadelhia Paul Krause PSA 9 1968 Topps Floyd Little PSA 8 1972 Topps Jim Plunkett PSA 9 1973 Topps Bob Kuchenberg PSA 9 1976 Topps Robert Brazile PSA 8 1977 Topps Harry Carson PSA 9 1980 Topps Lester Hayes PSA 9 2003 SP Authentic Troy Polamalu PSA 7.5 2006 Topps Chrome Santonio Holmes PSA 9
Jerome Bettis, RB Tim Brown, WR Cris Carter, WR Don Coryell, Coach Roger Craig, RB Terrell Davis, RB Dermontti Dawson, C Edward DeBartolo, Jr., Owner Richard Dent, DE Chris Doleman, DE/LB Marshall Faulk, RB Kevin Greene, LB/DE Ray Guy, P Charles Haley, DE/LB Lester Hayes, CB Cortez Kennedy, DT Curtis Martin, RB Art Modell, Owner Andre Reed, WR Willie Roaf, T Ed Sabol, Contributor Deion Sanders, CB Shannon Sharpe, TE Paul Tagliabue, Contributor Aeneas Williams, CB/S George Young, GM
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.
Jerome Bettis, RB Tim Brown, WR Cris Carter, WR Don Coryell, Coach Roger Craig, RB Terrell Davis, RB Dermontti Dawson, C Edward DeBartolo, Jr., Owner Richard Dent, DE Chris Doleman, DE/LB Marshall Faulk, RB Kevin Greene, LB/DE Ray Guy, P Charles Haley, DE/LB Lester Hayes, CB Cortez Kennedy, DT Curtis Martin, RB Art Modell, Owner Andre Reed, WR Willie Roaf, T Ed Sabol, Contributor Deion Sanders, CB Shannon Sharpe, TE Paul Tagliabue, Contributor Aeneas Williams, CB/S George Young, GM >>
Very nice, I was wondering when this was going to come out!
Deion Sanders and Richard Dent are locks to me, Haley and Tim Brown should be in someday.... Great list of players. The older I get the less "luster" there is on some of these players Ive seen play if you hang the "best player in your position" tag on them.
Senior's were selected a few months back, Chris Hanburger and Les Richter. 2 LB's which ends up hurting both of their chances. IMO, only one will get in.
Also, Faulk is as lock as they come. He's right behind Deion and will easily push Bettis and Martin back to next year. Dent should get in, once again he is the top defensive player on he board.
After those 3 its a toss up. I get the feeling that at least one of the 5 will be a coach/contributor. SIX of them in the final 26 this year.
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>Can you please tell me what the rookie cards are for Hanburger and Richter?
Thanks, Doc >>
Hanburger- 1967 Philly Richter- 1952 Bowman
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.
MacBoube here, with some Fight4oldDC type of info. - for the first time ever, I am offering some high grade '55 Topps All-Americans in MINT 9, and it does include some pretty important HOF Rookies that have rarely ever been offered at any auction in this type of condition.
<< <i>Senior's were selected a few months back, Chris Hanburger and Les Richter. 2 LB's which ends up hurting both of their chances. IMO, only one will get in.
Also, Faulk is as lock as they come. He's right behind Deion and will easily push Bettis and Martin back to next year. Dent should get in, once again he is the top defensive player on he board.
After those 3 its a toss up. I get the feeling that at least one of the 5 will be a coach/contributor. SIX of them in the final 26 this year. >>
as a lifelong Saints fan, and La Tech alum I would really love to see Willie Roaf make it on his first ballot.
I think, breaking down the announcement of the Hall of Fame's 26 semifinalists, I see some logjams and some possibilities. Enumerating them, from the point of view of one of the 44 voters (me):
a. Remember the process. These 26 aren't all going to make it in front of the Hall's 44 selectors for election into Canton. Only 15 of the 26 will, along with the two Senior Committee candidates, Les Richter and Chris Hanburger. So 11 will be trimmed from the list of 26 before the committee meets by a secret ballot. Those who could fall by the wayside before the Feb. 5 meeting in Texas: Giants GM George Young, safety Aeneas Williams, owner Art Modell, linebacker Kevin Greene, tackle Willie Roaf ... and maybe bigger names like Terrell Davis and Paul Tagliabue.
b. Sad to see the best special-teamer of all time, Steve Tasker, eliminated in the semifinal cut.
c. Ditto Ron Wolf, a deserving GM and architect.
d. Thrilled to see NFL Films founder Ed Sabol in the mix. Whether he makes the Hall in 2011, Sabol, at least once, deserves to have his case heard by the election committee. Young, Modell, Tagliabue, Terrell Davis ... they've already head their cases heard (some more than once) in the room and been turned down for entry. Sabol never has.
I realize how tough it is to make it. Just think: Only five of the 26 names on the semifinal list, at the most, will make it through the filtering process and be elected in two months. So many of these men are deserving. I think Sabol is one who needs to make it now. Seems to me the longer Sabol waits, the harder it'll be for him to get in. He's not a player, first of all, which makes entry so tough. There's no guarantee future voters, as the selectors get younger and younger, will appreciate the role of NFL Films in making the game so popular.
I thought of Sabol's value while watching the top-100 players series on NFL Network this fall. How would generations -- quite literally-- who follow us be able to know how good Otto Graham, Don Hutson and Sammy Baugh were, and how memorable the '50s Colts and '60s Packers were (not to mention all the great teams and players who followed) without the work of Sabol and the film-gatherers and -makers of NFL Films? Take NFL Films away from the football landscape and we wouldn't have the teaching moments of Vince Lombardi ("a seal here, a seal there'') and the grimy realness of the game.
More than anything, I fear Sabol becoming one of those names who the voters look at every fall and say, "Yeah, he should be in, but we've got to get Deion Sanders and Marshall Faulk in this year, and we've got to address the wide receivers and the backlog of defensive players -- we'll have to put ol' Ed off 'til next year.'' And next year, and next year. That's the problem. Sabol's easy to put off until next year. My question: Why not acknowledge the man, who, more than any single person, is responsible for the game growing at the intergalactic pace that it's grown?
e. At running back, Marshall Faulk looks like the favorite to filter through the deep class -- first-timers Faulk, Jerome Bettis and Curtis Martin, along with Roger Craig and Terrell Davis. The problem with looking at two or three making it, even if they're deserving, is that there are too many other strong players and deep position groups. Does Martin deserve it over Cris Carter? Bettis over Shannon Sharpe. Craig over Charles Haley? Those are the kinds of decisions that have to be made once in the room, where the list will be cut from 15 down to 10, and then from 10 to five, before voting yea or nay on the final five for election.
f. The receiver class having only three returnees -- Carter, Tim Brown, Andre Reed -- may sharpen the focus on them instead of diluting the group. My sense is Carter is the leader of the three. But if the group continues to fracture and divide, we may continue to elect none of them.
g. From here, the 44 voters pick their 15 in the next three weeks, and the Hall will tabulate the votes and announce its final 15 -- plus Richter and Hanburger -- in January.
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.
Good article by Peter King regarding HOF selections. Question: what really are the odds of Richter and Hanburger actually getting in? IMO there are so many more deserving senior players than either of them.
<< <i>Good article by Peter King regarding HOF selections. Question: what really are the odds of Richter and Hanburger actually getting in? IMO there are so many more deserving senior players than either of them.
Doc >>
That 1 gets in? 99%. That both get in? 1%
I have to disagree that there are "so many more" deserving players. There may be a handful more deserving, but Hanburger in particular is as deserving as they come in my book. I hope he is the correct selection this year.
I wondered why the senior committee chose two players from the same position. At the time I thought it was pretty idiotic. But I got some down low on what the thinking was here. LB is considered the MOST backed up position of the senior pool. By selecting 2 of the LB candidates, they shrink that pool considerably. Even if neither player is selected, it's two LB candidates discussed in the room and off the radar. These 2 were not the top LB candidates if you ranked them. But the committee is aware and expect that these 2 will end up being compared to one another and only one will get in. They did not want to select any of the top LBs at the risk of having someone they think is more deserving (Nobis and Dave Robinson for example) get denied due to competing with each other at the same position.
Having 2 additional defensive finalists also frees the voters to look harder at the modern offensive finalists. Wouldn't be shocked if Deion ends up as the only modern defensive player selected this year.
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>Anyone heard from DC since his "I'm now selling off" post? I emailed him last week about a couple of cards, but no response yet.
Jasen >>
Hi Jasen,
A collector friend of mine had a similar experience. Sent an e-mail, no response after quite a while. Maybe it's coming? >>
Jon has quite a bit going on right now. Last we spoke, he made a list of all those who staked a claim to any cards prior to hitting the market.
So I would say be patient. If you have an interest send an e-mail. At some point in the near future you will hear something from him or Rick at Mint State who is going to be handling all of the sales for him. He's got alot a million dollar collection, it's probably going to take some time to line out all of the issues.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I also heard back from Jon (not about the card I asked about) regarding his list. As Jason mentioned, he has a lot going on now. He probably should not have posted the for sale list here because he doesn't have time to deal with the inquiries at the moment.
"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."
Does anyone know Philip Rivers "rookie card of choice"? The one that will eventually be put in the future HOF RC set. (pending a vote of course)
I know the most popular card of choice for the last decade is the Topps Chrome RC's but I noticed that a PSA 10 Rivers recently sold for $10. Surely there is something more valuable that fits within our criteria. (Non auto, serial # >1K)
<< <i>Does anyone know Philip Rivers "rookie card of choice"? The one that will eventually be put in the future HOF RC set. (pending a vote of course)
I know the most popular card of choice for the last decade is the Topps Chrome RC's but I noticed that a PSA 10 Rivers recently sold for $10. Surely there is something more valuable that fits within our criteria. (Non auto, serial # >1K)
Dave >>
Dave,
I think this is going to be the case for most, if not all, of the newer RCs, particularly those who were higher-round draft picks. I started a registry for Larry Fitzgerald RCs, which are the same year as Rivers. They have the Topps Chrome with a 1.5 set weighting. There are a ton of cards weighted 2.0, although I'd have to check to see which ones are #/999 or better. All cards in the registry weighted higher than 2.0 are auto'd, including his Ulimate Collection, Contenders RC Ticket, SP Authentic, SPx, etc. If the rules for this set remain in place, we will have to include cards for these players which are not all that expensive in PSA 10 grade. I'm not making a judgment as to whether this is good or bad, just stating a fact.
I upgraded my "72 Rayfield Wright #316 yesterday. If anyone wants my Wright in a psa 6 for $20.00 shipped let me know. There is a scan in my NFL HOF RCs set.
I upgraded my "72 Rayfield Wright #316 yesterday. If anyone wants my Wright in a psa 6 for $20.00 shipped let me know. There is a scan in my NFL HOF RCs set.
Tom >>
you must have won the PSA 8 I was watching on eBay. Congrats.
<< <i>Does anyone know Philip Rivers "rookie card of choice"? The one that will eventually be put in the future HOF RC set. (pending a vote of course)
I know the most popular card of choice for the last decade is the Topps Chrome RC's but I noticed that a PSA 10 Rivers recently sold for $10. Surely there is something more valuable that fits within our criteria. (Non auto, serial # >1K)
Dave >>
Dave,
I think this is going to be the case for most, if not all, of the newer RCs, particularly those who were higher-round draft picks. I started a registry for Larry Fitzgerald RCs, which are the same year as Rivers. They have the Topps Chrome with a 1.5 set weighting. There are a ton of cards weighted 2.0, although I'd have to check to see which ones are #/999 or better. All cards in the registry weighted higher than 2.0 are auto'd, including his Ulimate Collection, Contenders RC Ticket, SP Authentic, SPx, etc. If the rules for this set remain in place, we will have to include cards for these players which are not all that expensive in PSA 10 grade. I'm not making a judgment as to whether this is good or bad, just stating a fact.
Jasen >>
It's the modern card market, and it is what it is. Of all the cards we currently do not use, the one I would fight the most against are cards individually numbered lower than /999. Of course that alone eliminates 99% of the auto/jersey/game used/inserts/parallel cards. The danger in going lower to say /500 or /100, is that now we have created a set (which already has over 100 collectors) that at some point a new collector wouldn't be able to start with ANY hopes of completing. This effectively LIMITS the upside value of the set as a whole. As we would likely LOSE collectors who would choose to never start the set with no hope of ever completing it. This set was built for the masses. It is why we used BASE ISSUE rookie cards and not regional, unrealistic issues that would have made completion all but unattainable.
On the bright side, paying $10 for a Phillip Rivers PSA 10 RC allows you to instead use your money on upgrading your 1935 and 1948 RC's...So I'm certainly not complaining...lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Does anyone know Philip Rivers "rookie card of choice"? The one that will eventually be put in the future HOF RC set. (pending a vote of course)
I know the most popular card of choice for the last decade is the Topps Chrome RC's but I noticed that a PSA 10 Rivers recently sold for $10. Surely there is something more valuable that fits within our criteria. (Non auto, serial # >1K)
Dave >>
Dave,
I think this is going to be the case for most, if not all, of the newer RCs, particularly those who were higher-round draft picks. I started a registry for Larry Fitzgerald RCs, which are the same year as Rivers. They have the Topps Chrome with a 1.5 set weighting. There are a ton of cards weighted 2.0, although I'd have to check to see which ones are #/999 or better. All cards in the registry weighted higher than 2.0 are auto'd, including his Ulimate Collection, Contenders RC Ticket, SP Authentic, SPx, etc. If the rules for this set remain in place, we will have to include cards for these players which are not all that expensive in PSA 10 grade. I'm not making a judgment as to whether this is good or bad, just stating a fact.
Jasen >>
It's the modern card market, and it is what it is. Of all the cards we currently do not use, the one I would fight the most against are cards individually numbered lower than /999. Of course that alone eliminates 99% of the auto/jersey/game used/inserts/parallel cards. The danger in going lower to say /500 or /100, is that now we have created a set (which already has over 100 collectors) that at some point a new collector wouldn't be able to start with ANY hopes of completing. This effectively LIMITS the upside value of the set as a whole. As we would likely LOSE collectors who would choose to never start the set with no hope of ever completing it. This set was built for the masses. It is why we used BASE ISSUE rookie cards and not regional, unrealistic issues that would have made completion all but unattainable.
On the bright side, paying $10 for a Phillip Rivers PSA 10 RC allows you to instead use your money on upgrading your 1935 and 1948 RC's...So I'm certainly not complaining...lol
Jason >>
Excellent points that I agree with.
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's the modern card market, and it is what it is. Of all the cards we currently do not use, the one I would fight the most against are cards individually numbered lower than /999. Of course that alone eliminates 99% of the auto/jersey/game used/inserts/parallel cards. The danger in going lower to say /500 or /100, is that now we have created a set (which already has over 100 collectors) that at some point a new collector wouldn't be able to start with ANY hopes of completing. This effectively LIMITS the upside value of the set as a whole. As we would likely LOSE collectors who would choose to never start the set with no hope of ever completing it. This set was built for the masses. It is why we used BASE ISSUE rookie cards and not regional, unrealistic issues that would have made completion all but unattainable.
As usual, Jason hits the nail on the head.
I'm a bid SP and SP Authentic collector. Although I would love to see those cards consistently used for the all-time and HOF sets, it's better for the hobby and those set collectors that we use my accessible cards. Like Jason said, these sets are for the masses.
BTW, the SP Authentic P. Rivers Rc is numbered to 299
<< <i>It's the modern card market, and it is what it is. Of all the cards we currently do not use, the one I would fight the most against are cards individually numbered lower than /999. Of course that alone eliminates 99% of the auto/jersey/game used/inserts/parallel cards. The danger in going lower to say /500 or /100, is that now we have created a set (which already has over 100 collectors) that at some point a new collector wouldn't be able to start with ANY hopes of completing. This effectively LIMITS the upside value of the set as a whole. As we would likely LOSE collectors who would choose to never start the set with no hope of ever completing it. This set was built for the masses. It is why we used BASE ISSUE rookie cards and not regional, unrealistic issues that would have made completion all but unattainable.
As usual, Jason hits the nail on the head.
I'm a bid SP and SP Authentic collector. Although I would love to see those cards consistently used for the all-time and HOF sets, it's better for the hobby and those set collectors that we use my accessible cards. Like Jason said, these sets are for the masses.
BTW, the SP Authentic P. Rivers Rc is numbered to 299 >>
Also an auto AND jersey, I believe...I know the Fitz is.
It happens when each page "flips". When you hit last page it doesnt take you to the last page. Once there are 4 or 5 posts made then it works. Once it "flips" again, it will happen again.
All you have to do is change the # in the address bar to the next #.
For example, my address bar reads like this.......
2011 Pro Bowl Rosters announced today. Here are the guaranteed active player nominees we will be voting on in a few weeks for additions to the Future HOF Modern set. Anyone with 6 Pro Bowls or 4 1st Team All-Pro's are automatic nominees. All-Pro's not out for another couple of weeks though. If you have some others in mind, have their resume ready so you can add them to the nominee list.
Jason Witten 7 Richard Seymour 6 Dwight Freeney 6 Chad Johnson 6 Julius Peppers 6 Troy Polamalu 6 Olin Kreutz 6 Lance Briggs 6 Donovan McNabb 6 Matt Birk 6
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'd like to add Reggie Wayne to the list. 5 Pro Bowls and 7 straight 1,000-yard seasons.
"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>I'd like to add Reggie Wayne to the list. 5 Pro Bowls and 7 straight 1,000-yard seasons. >>
I will add Wayne to my nominee list for the poll....Same for Brees.
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.
Here is my current list of nominees for addition to the Modern set. Still waiting for the All-Pro announcements (first week or so of January).
6+ Pro Bowls: Jason Witten Richard Seymour Dwight Freeney Chad Johnson Julius Peppers Troy Polamalu Olin Kreutz Lance Briggs Donovan McNabb Matt Birk
Other nominees with fewer than 6 Pro Bowls: Drew Brees Hines Ward Edgerrin James Ty Law Reggie Wayne
Players who have been HOF Semifinalists (top 25) but are not included on the set: Kevin Greene-5 times Steve Tasker-4 times Joe Jacoby-2 times Donnie Shell- 1 time
Players who could get their fourth 1st team All-Pro selection (these won't be automatic nominees unless they are 1st team selections): 1-Ronde Barber 2-DeMarcus Ware 3-Jared Allen
Only Ware made the Pro Bowl, so is likely the only of the 3 with a shot. Downfall for Ware is that he's only played 6 seasons. If he blows out a knee in training camp, he won;t have enough longevity to make the HOF, so I don;t know how we can vote him in.
Guys I will be nominating for removal: Steve At-water-7 straight years has not made Top 25 semifinalist LeRoy Butler- 5 straight years has not made Top 25 semifinalist
For those who plan on voting. If you are unaware or not familiar with any of these players, take some time in the next few weeks to learn what you can so we all can make logical votes.
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>Here is my current list of nominees for addition to the Modern set. Still waiting for the All-Pro announcements (first week or so of January).
6+ Pro Bowls: Jason Witten Richard Seymour Dwight Freeney Chad Johnson Julius Peppers Troy Polamalu Olin Kreutz Lance Briggs Donovan McNabb Matt Birk
Other nominees with fewer than 6 Pro Bowls: Drew Brees Hines Ward Edgerrin James Ty Law Reggie Wayne
Players who have been HOF Semifinalists (top 25) but are not included on the set: Kevin Greene-5 times Steve Tasker-4 times Joe Jacoby-2 times Donnie Shell- 1 time
Players who could get their fourth 1st team All-Pro selection (these won't be automatic nominees unless they are 1st team selections): 1-Ronde Barber 2-DeMarcus Ware 3-Jared Allen
Only Ware made the Pro Bowl, so is likely the only of the 3 with a shot. Downfall for Ware is that he's only played 6 seasons. If he blows out a knee in training camp, he won;t have enough longevity to make the HOF, so I don;t know how we can vote him in.
Guys I will be nominating for removal: Steve At-water-7 straight years has not made Top 25 semifinalist LeRoy Butler- 5 straight years has not made Top 25 semifinalist
For those who plan on voting. If you are unaware or not familiar with any of these players, take some time in the next few weeks to learn what you can so we all can make logical votes. >>
maybe we should just eliminate the safety position from this set, as we are proposing removing the two starting safeties from the 1990's All Decade Team.
the safety position is one that receives some of the few considerations in HOF voting to start with...other than Ronnie Lott. What other recent safety has gotten in without quite a bit of debate over years of waiting or having to go the SR route.
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> maybe we should just eliminate the safety position from this set, as we are proposing removing the two starting safeties from the 1990's All Decade Team.
the safety position is one that receives some of the few considerations in HOF voting to start with...other than Ronnie Lott. What other recent safety has gotten in without quite a bit of debate over years of waiting or having to go the SR route. >>
Actually, Lott wasn't a true Safety either since he played CB his first 5 seasons. Rod Woodson, same thing.
I'm sure most of us THOUGHT At-water and Butler would be HOFers when we voted to add these guys. Unfortunately, the voters think otherwise. Kenny Easley was a pure Safety and 1st Team 1980's All-Decade who has never received voter consideration, nor is on our set either. My basic rule of thumb is five years without making the top 25, and the player is no longer a "likely" HOFer. Which is what this set is supposed to consist. If these guys can ever crack the top 25, they may be worth a look again. Until then, they look kinda dumb on the set IMO, especially when we have say Kevin Greene NOT on the set who has been in the top 25 the last 5 years in a row.
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> maybe we should just eliminate the safety position from this set, as we are proposing removing the two starting safeties from the 1990's All Decade Team.
the safety position is one that receives some of the few considerations in HOF voting to start with...other than Ronnie Lott. What other recent safety has gotten in without quite a bit of debate over years of waiting or having to go the SR route. >>
Actually, Lott wasn't a true Safety either since he played CB his first 5 seasons. Rod Woodson, same thing.
I'm sure most of us THOUGHT At-water and Butler would be HOFers when we voted to add these guys. Unfortunately, the voters think otherwise. Kenny Easley was a pure Safety and 1st Team 1980's All-Decade who has never received voter consideration, nor is on our set either. My basic rule of thumb is five years without making the top 25, and the player is no longer a "likely" HOFer. Which is what this set is supposed to consist. If these guys can ever crack the top 25, they may be worth a look again. Until then, they look kinda dumb on the set IMO, especially when we have say Kevin Greene NOT on the set who has been in the top 25 the last 5 years in a row. >>
just offering up my thoughts as to why i dont collect this set actively anymore. we start to put players on that arent even retired, yet they could be removed from the set 10 years after they finally retire. doesnt seem to make much sense. but thats just my 2 cents.
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
just offering up my thoughts as to why i dont collect this set actively anymore. we start to put players on that arent even retired, yet they could be removed from the set 10 years after they finally retire. doesnt seem to make much sense. but thats just my 2 cents. >>
Well, certainly that is your prerogative. I stopped collecting all the Key Card sets for similar reasons.
This set, when we started it, was always meant to be for us and by us. We, as a group here on the boards, ALWAYS vote for who we think should be added and who should not. Not your opinion or my opinion. But a group opinion. I did not vote for every player currently listed, and don't agree that everyone there is a "likely" HOFer. But that's just my opinion. The majority thought otherwise. This set was also always meant to be very liquid, so it is not for the faint of heart. 4-7 guys come OFF the set every year as they are elected to the HOF, or moved to the Senior candidate pool. NOT ONE CARD OR PLAYER on this set will be there forever. And players we added, who no longer look like they will be selected for the HOF are eligible to be removed IF and only if the majority vote to remove them.
The set as meant as a place that we (HOF Rookie Player set collectors) can have a checklist and list our cards BEFORE gaining election into the HOF. It lets us know EXACTLY which cards will be going to the HOF RC set, because when a player is elected who is a part of the Future Modern or Senior set, that card goes DIRECTLY to the HOF set. No vote, no poll, no discussion on which card. Because we've already had the discussion.
It's not for everyone, but neither is the Favre Ticket Stub set. But there are 48 collectors who are getting ahead of the curve towards getting the correct rookie cards that will LIKELY be added to the HOF RC set at some point. My posts with a heads up for the nominees and the removals are specifically for those 48 collectors. Not sure why someone not even collecting the set could care less who's getting voted on and who is getting voted off.
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> My posts with a heads up for the nominees and the removals are specifically for those 48 collectors. Not sure why someone not even collecting the set could care less who's getting voted on and who is getting voted off. >>
though i am not actively collecting the set at present my set is still listed and i will eventually return. plus i do a interest in following the debate for potential future HOF enshrinees. since i am not an active collector i dont vote for the canidates that are brought up on the board or through the email requests either, so i dont dilute the votes with someone that isnt active.
i thought the board was a place to express your thoughts whether or not you were actively collecting a set. i guess thats not the case.
i will keep any of my comments in the future soley concerning each canidates worthiness about being in the HOF rather than whether a card belongs in which set or how the set is managed until the time that i return to collecting this set.
Packers Fan for Life Collecting: Brett Favre Master Set Favre Ticket Stubs Favre TD Reciever Autos Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set Football HOF Rc's
though i am not actively collecting the set at present my set is still listed and i will eventually return. plus i do a interest in following the debate for potential future HOF enshrinees. since i am not an active collector i dont vote for the canidates that are brought up on the board or through the email requests either, so i dont dilute the votes with someone that isnt active.
i thought the board was a place to express your thoughts whether or not you were actively collecting a set. i guess thats not the case.
i will keep any of my comments in the future soley concerning each canidates worthiness about being in the HOF rather than whether a card belongs in which set or how the set is managed until the time that i return to collecting this set. >>
No one said you can't share your thoughts on it. I guess I just was/am not understanding the point of your posted thoughts. First you say we should just eliminate the Safety position altogether since At-water and Butler will be nominated for removal. Which makes even less sense than just removing the 2 players who have not made the top 25 in the last 5+ years. Then you say it is why you don't actively collect the set due to the fact we add active players and then can vote for their removal down the road after circumstances change.
Help me understand what your point is here. Is your opinion that no card should ever be removed from the set? Even though seniors and HOF electees are removed every year? Should a player who was once regarded by the collectors of this set as a HOF caliber guy should REMAIN on the set even though the actual HOF voters are giving them ZERO support? Isn;t the set meant to be a place where we house cards of LIKELY HOFers? Is someone who can not even make the top 25 a "likely" HOFer? Can't situations and how players are regarded CHANGE especially after their playing careers are over? What exactly is the reason you do not actively collect the set? You don't like the player selection? Because NO PLAYER (as of yet) has ever been VOTED OFF the set, so certainly that can't be your reasoning. Should we not feature ACTIVE players on the set? Honestly, this was the #1 reason the set got started so guys could be purchasing the CORRECT CARD of future HOFers before they get elected. Some collectors actually enjoy the modern cards.
Your response will surely help quell my mis-understanding. I was not trying to hurt your feelings, I just am not getting the point of what you are trying to say here.
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.
Help me understand what your point is here. Is your opinion that no card should ever be removed from the set? Even though seniors and HOF electees are removed every year? Should a player who was once regarded by the collectors of this set as a HOF caliber guy should REMAIN on the set even though the actual HOF voters are giving them ZERO support? Isn;t the set meant to be a place where we house cards of LIKELY HOFers? Is someone who can not even make the top 25 a "likely" HOFer? Can't situations and how players are regarded CHANGE especially after their playing careers are over? What exactly is the reason you do not actively collect the set? You don't like the player selection? Because NO PLAYER (as of yet) has ever been VOTED OFF the set, so certainly that can't be your reasoning. Should we not feature ACTIVE players on the set? Honestly, this was the #1 reason the set got started so guys could be purchasing the CORRECT CARD of future HOFers before they get elected. Some collectors actually enjoy the modern cards.
Your response will surely help quell my mis-understanding. I was not trying to hurt your feelings, I just am not getting the point of what you are trying to say here.
Jason >>
first off their are no hurt feelings. nothing said on any message board would ever hurt my feelings.
now on to your questions. i will do my best to answer each.
first let me state that i see removing a card from a set because it has either moved into the HOF set or the SR set completely different from removing a card completely. that should answer your first two questions. as for the third, yes its for likely HOFers but they are our choices as likely HOFers. as for the 4th question, let me answer that question with a question...is a former player dropped from consideration after by the HOF or its voters after they havent made the final 25 cut after the first 5 years? if not, if that player then all of a sudden makes the top 25 cut would the card be readded to the set for another period of time. of course things can always change but again does that mean a card could be dropped and then readded. i dont think (though I may be wrong) that the Pro Football HOF voting is different from the baseball HOF, in which i belive at some point people get dropped after not getting enough votes.
as for the reason that i am not currently actively collecting this set (which means i am not buying or actively searching for cards of non "locks", however i am not selling the cards that i currently own either) is a few fold. for awhile we were down to 1 income for a year which means i contracted all of my collecting expect in a few small cases. after that year i have slowly restarted but have still kept my focus fairly narrow. so its hard to say that i am actively collecting this set.
as for the players selected so far in the set i dont have that much of an argument for many but i find it hard to think that with only 1 kicker currenlty in the HOF that the 3 that we have on our set are all going to make it to the HOF. however with some of the new players that will be up for a vote i have a hard to seeing how a witten or a chad johnson is going to crack the top 25 with the players already waiting on that set arent even eligible for voting yet. then again the vote that takes place will tell if they get added. i do think that at times active players get a jump with good starts to their career. as we all know probowl voting can often go more on rep many years then actual production that year or the rest of the players in that conference at TE. for example for quite awhile you had gates and gonzo in the AFC, while the TE's in the NFC werent the strongest which i my mind accounts a lot for the 6 probowls for a witten. so i think i answered most of your questions. let me know if i have missed any.
now one for you. what is would be the removal of a candidate from the SR set other than election to the HOF? to be honest, as much as i like jerry kramer and think he should be in he has been a finalist how many times and not been elected by many of the same voters that put him on the all 75th NFL team. if those voters wont how will newer voters elect him that never saw him play? it seems like we dont have a policy for ever removing someone from the SR set other than election. clearly as we have seen in the past the SR selections can be even more of a crap shoot than the modern. more than likely it is going to take the SR selection process to add an At**water or a Bulter...however its not that they arent worthy its more of a numbers game. over the last few years look how many first year elections were made. that has created quite a backlog of candidates many of which were probably really fighting for the top 25 to start with. since 2004 look at the names of many of the modern selections many were first year or second year candidates. with the elways, marinos, sanders, smiths (both), rice, young and white many other worthy candidates never came off the list as those selections were so much greater players that they tended to be elected all by themselves with only SR selections (take for example 2004 and 2005). finally they started clearing some of the back log in 2006 to some extent but more so in 2007-08. we all know its easy picks for QB, RB and WR. but lbs and dbs are always tough to sort through. i feel that to say that after your first 5 years is pretty short of a window to recommend starting to pull the plug.
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
...is a former player dropped from consideration after by the HOF or its voters after they havent made the final 25 cut after the first 5 years? if not, if that player then all of a sudden makes the top 25 cut would the card be readded to the set for another period of time. of course things can always change but again does that mean a card could be dropped and then readded. i dont think (though I may be wrong) that the Pro Football HOF voting is different from the baseball HOF, in which i belive at some point people get dropped after not getting enough votes. >>
No, a player is ELIGIBLE for induction via modern HOF vote 5 years after retirement, up until 25 years after retirement, in which case they move to the senior pool of candidates. There were 114 nominees this year alone. If we were to have every nominee/HOF eligible player represented on the set, the set would be HUGE and would contain a majority of players who will never make the HOF. This was not the purpose of the set when it was created. YES, a player could be readded at some point. If Butler or At-water were to get voted off the set, and 10 years down the road make the top 25 or better yet become a top 15 finalist, then I'd be first in line to vote them back on the set.
<< <i> however with some of the new players that will be up for a vote i have a hard to seeing how a witten or a chad johnson is going to crack the top 25 with the players already waiting on that set arent even eligible for voting yet. >>
AGREED. I won't be casting votes for Witten or Johnson, but that doesn't mean THE MAJORITY won't vote for them. 6 Pro Bowls and 4 First Team All-Pros are just baseline numbers that I use for AUTOMATIC nominations. We usually end up with anywhere between 2-5 new additions each year. Out of 10-20 nominees. So don't confuse my nominee list as a list of new additions to the set. We go with MAJORITY vote here, and not all of us share the same opinion on players. Just like the actual HOF voters do not.
<< <i>now one for you. what is would be the removal of a candidate from the SR set other than election to the HOF? to be honest, as much as i like jerry kramer and think he should be in he has been a finalist how many times and not been elected by many of the same voters that put him on the all 75th NFL team. if those voters wont how will newer voters elect him that never saw him play? it seems like we dont have a policy for ever removing someone from the SR set other than election. clearly as we have seen in the past the SR selections can be even more of a crap shoot than the modern. more than likely it is going to take the SR selection process to add an At**water or a Bulter...however its not that they arent worthy its more of a numbers game. over the last few years look how many first year elections were made. that has created quite a backlog of candidates many of which were probably really fighting for the top 25 to start with. since 2004 look at the names of many of the modern selections many were first year or second year candidates. with the elways, marinos, sanders, smiths (both), rice, young and white many other worthy candidates never came off the list as those selections were so much greater players that they tended to be elected all by themselves with only SR selections (take for example 2004 and 2005). finally they started clearing some of the back log in 2006 to some extent but more so in 2007-08. we all know its easy picks for QB, RB and WR. but lbs and dbs are always tough to sort through. i feel that to say that after your first 5 years is pretty short of a window to recommend starting to pull the plug. >>
What you are missing is that the Senior set is MUCH broader and MUCH more speculative than the modern set. These sets are not comprised or built in the same way. The mere fact that a Senior candidate had to get PASSED UP for election for at least 25 years guarantees that none of them are LIKELY or LOCK future HOFers. But the process to remove is the exact same. Nomination, then majority vote. To date, not one modern OR senior candidate has ever been "voted off", but we've seen nominations and votes for guys like At-Water, Jason Elam and Jimmy Smith in the past. Just never a majority. When placing MY vote to remove, I base it on what the HOF voters are telling me. That provides the best evidence as to who maybe is no longer a LIKELY HOFer. Just my opinion.
Also, as far as the 5 year time frame goes, we are talking TOP 25...Not 5 years of not making the HOF. Not 5 years not making the top 15. 5 years not making the TOP 25! Now, does that automatically mean the player will never make the HOF? Of course not. Look at a guy like Rickey Jackson. He had never even made the top 25 until 2008. Then 2009, he was OUT of the top 25 again. 2010 rolls around, he gets a big push and ends up getting elected over a guy like Richard Dent who'd been a finalist for the 5 of the previous 6 years. Dent had even made the cut to the final 10 the previous 3 years. BUT, was Rickey Jackson on our set prior to being named a semifinalist or even a finalist? NO he wasn't. Because his election would be deemed by most an UNLIKELY election.
hey, vote for removal is just that a vote. I will be lobbying for the removal of At-water just as I have the past couple of years. Because the evidence (7 years not in the top 25) it showing me that he is not LIKELY to ever get inducted. The set wasn't built to house maybe/possible/10% chance guys, but rather better than 50%, more like 75% type guys. If you see others who you do not think belong, by all means NOMINATE THEM. That was my purpose for posting her BEFORE we vote in a few weeks. Get all the nominations lined up for my initial post. Anyone you nominate for addition or removal I will add to my initial poll/vote post. Then we let the majority decide who to add and who to take off. We all have different opinions, so that is why letting the votes decide always works best. How can any of us complain when we go with majority opinion. You can disagree, which I have plenty of times, but you have to at least respect the process. Much like the actual HOF vote.
Hopefully this dialogue has helped us both understand the alternate points of view.
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.
Comments
Thanks
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Make me an offer. I will be using the usual sources to price the cards - so should you as you make an offer. Again, I am not desperate and will only sell at the high end the range. Better to pay top dollar to me than to an auction house plus their fees. All prices will include insured shipping. ut if you I accept checks or paypal - but if you pay via paypal, you must pay using the gift tab so I do not incur any fees.
All inquiries should be sent to jondisaacson@gmail.com
The rest of the sets, I will be sending in relabeling - Fight4OldDc collection and sell of more on the board before heading to ebay, auction houses (Mint State and Memory Lane mostly) etc.
All are PSA graded
1935 National Chicle Knute Rockne PSA 8
1948 Leaf Whitey Wistert PSA 6
1948 Leaf Whitey Wistert PSA 7
1948 Bowman Bulldog Turner PSA 8
1948 Leaf Sid Luckman Yellow Background PSA 7
1950 Bowman Tank Younger PSA 9
1952 Bowman Large Ollie Matson PSA 8
1955 Topps All American Ace Parker PSA 8
1961 Fleer Maxie Baughan PSA 5 (not a typo - won the wrong auction)
1965 Philadelphia Charley Taylor PSA 9
1965 Philadelphia Carl Eller PSA 9
1965 Philadelphia Paul Warlfield PSA 9
1965 Philadelhia Paul Krause PSA 9
1968 Topps Floyd Little PSA 8
1972 Topps Jim Plunkett PSA 9
1973 Topps Bob Kuchenberg PSA 9
1976 Topps Robert Brazile PSA 8
1977 Topps Harry Carson PSA 9
1980 Topps Lester Hayes PSA 9
2003 SP Authentic Troy Polamalu PSA 7.5
2006 Topps Chrome Santonio Holmes PSA 9
Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving!
Jerome Bettis, RB
Tim Brown, WR
Cris Carter, WR
Don Coryell, Coach
Roger Craig, RB
Terrell Davis, RB
Dermontti Dawson, C
Edward DeBartolo, Jr., Owner
Richard Dent, DE
Chris Doleman, DE/LB
Marshall Faulk, RB
Kevin Greene, LB/DE
Ray Guy, P
Charles Haley, DE/LB
Lester Hayes, CB
Cortez Kennedy, DT
Curtis Martin, RB
Art Modell, Owner
Andre Reed, WR
Willie Roaf, T
Ed Sabol, Contributor
Deion Sanders, CB
Shannon Sharpe, TE
Paul Tagliabue, Contributor
Aeneas Williams, CB/S
George Young, GM
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>26 HOF Semifinalist for 2011:
Jerome Bettis, RB
Tim Brown, WR
Cris Carter, WR
Don Coryell, Coach
Roger Craig, RB
Terrell Davis, RB
Dermontti Dawson, C
Edward DeBartolo, Jr., Owner
Richard Dent, DE
Chris Doleman, DE/LB
Marshall Faulk, RB
Kevin Greene, LB/DE
Ray Guy, P
Charles Haley, DE/LB
Lester Hayes, CB
Cortez Kennedy, DT
Curtis Martin, RB
Art Modell, Owner
Andre Reed, WR
Willie Roaf, T
Ed Sabol, Contributor
Deion Sanders, CB
Shannon Sharpe, TE
Paul Tagliabue, Contributor
Aeneas Williams, CB/S
George Young, GM >>
Very nice, I was wondering when this was going to come out!
Deion Sanders and Richard Dent are locks to me, Haley and Tim Brown should be in someday.... Great list of players. The older I get the less "luster" there is on some of these players Ive seen play if you hang the "best player in your position" tag on them.
When do they announce the Senior class?
Also, Faulk is as lock as they come. He's right behind Deion and will easily push Bettis and Martin back to next year. Dent should get in, once again he is the top defensive player on he board.
After those 3 its a toss up. I get the feeling that at least one of the 5 will be a coach/contributor. SIX of them in the final 26 this year.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Thanks, Doc
<< <i>Can you please tell me what the rookie cards are for Hanburger and Richter?
Thanks, Doc >>
Hanburger- 1967 Philly
Richter- 1952 Bowman
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Text
Text
<< <i>Senior's were selected a few months back, Chris Hanburger and Les Richter. 2 LB's which ends up hurting both of their chances. IMO, only one will get in.
Also, Faulk is as lock as they come. He's right behind Deion and will easily push Bettis and Martin back to next year. Dent should get in, once again he is the top defensive player on he board.
After those 3 its a toss up. I get the feeling that at least one of the 5 will be a coach/contributor. SIX of them in the final 26 this year. >>
as a lifelong Saints fan, and La Tech alum I would really love to see Willie Roaf make it on his first ballot.
I think, breaking down the announcement of the Hall of Fame's 26 semifinalists, I see some logjams and some possibilities. Enumerating them, from the point of view of one of the 44 voters (me):
a. Remember the process. These 26 aren't all going to make it in front of the Hall's 44 selectors for election into Canton. Only 15 of the 26 will, along with the two Senior Committee candidates, Les Richter and Chris Hanburger. So 11 will be trimmed from the list of 26 before the committee meets by a secret ballot. Those who could fall by the wayside before the Feb. 5 meeting in Texas: Giants GM George Young, safety Aeneas Williams, owner Art Modell, linebacker Kevin Greene, tackle Willie Roaf ... and maybe bigger names like Terrell Davis and Paul Tagliabue.
b. Sad to see the best special-teamer of all time, Steve Tasker, eliminated in the semifinal cut.
c. Ditto Ron Wolf, a deserving GM and architect.
d. Thrilled to see NFL Films founder Ed Sabol in the mix. Whether he makes the Hall in 2011, Sabol, at least once, deserves to have his case heard by the election committee. Young, Modell, Tagliabue, Terrell Davis ... they've already head their cases heard (some more than once) in the room and been turned down for entry. Sabol never has.
I realize how tough it is to make it. Just think: Only five of the 26 names on the semifinal list, at the most, will make it through the filtering process and be elected in two months. So many of these men are deserving. I think Sabol is one who needs to make it now. Seems to me the longer Sabol waits, the harder it'll be for him to get in. He's not a player, first of all, which makes entry so tough. There's no guarantee future voters, as the selectors get younger and younger, will appreciate the role of NFL Films in making the game so popular.
I thought of Sabol's value while watching the top-100 players series on NFL Network this fall. How would generations -- quite literally-- who follow us be able to know how good Otto Graham, Don Hutson and Sammy Baugh were, and how memorable the '50s Colts and '60s Packers were (not to mention all the great teams and players who followed) without the work of Sabol and the film-gatherers and -makers of NFL Films? Take NFL Films away from the football landscape and we wouldn't have the teaching moments of Vince Lombardi ("a seal here, a seal there'') and the grimy realness of the game.
More than anything, I fear Sabol becoming one of those names who the voters look at every fall and say, "Yeah, he should be in, but we've got to get Deion Sanders and Marshall Faulk in this year, and we've got to address the wide receivers and the backlog of defensive players -- we'll have to put ol' Ed off 'til next year.'' And next year, and next year. That's the problem. Sabol's easy to put off until next year. My question: Why not acknowledge the man, who, more than any single person, is responsible for the game growing at the intergalactic pace that it's grown?
e. At running back, Marshall Faulk looks like the favorite to filter through the deep class -- first-timers Faulk, Jerome Bettis and Curtis Martin, along with Roger Craig and Terrell Davis. The problem with looking at two or three making it, even if they're deserving, is that there are too many other strong players and deep position groups. Does Martin deserve it over Cris Carter? Bettis over Shannon Sharpe. Craig over Charles Haley? Those are the kinds of decisions that have to be made once in the room, where the list will be cut from 15 down to 10, and then from 10 to five, before voting yea or nay on the final five for election.
f. The receiver class having only three returnees -- Carter, Tim Brown, Andre Reed -- may sharpen the focus on them instead of diluting the group. My sense is Carter is the leader of the three. But if the group continues to fracture and divide, we may continue to elect none of them.
g. From here, the 44 voters pick their 15 in the next three weeks, and the Hall will tabulate the votes and announce its final 15 -- plus Richter and Hanburger -- in January.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Jasen
Doc
<< <i>Good article by Peter King regarding HOF selections. Question: what really are the odds of Richter and Hanburger actually getting in? IMO there are so many more deserving senior players than either of them.
Doc >>
That 1 gets in? 99%. That both get in? 1%
I have to disagree that there are "so many more" deserving players. There may be a handful more deserving, but Hanburger in particular is as deserving as they come in my book. I hope he is the correct selection this year.
I wondered why the senior committee chose two players from the same position. At the time I thought it was pretty idiotic. But I got some down low on what the thinking was here. LB is considered the MOST backed up position of the senior pool. By selecting 2 of the LB candidates, they shrink that pool considerably. Even if neither player is selected, it's two LB candidates discussed in the room and off the radar. These 2 were not the top LB candidates if you ranked them. But the committee is aware and expect that these 2 will end up being compared to one another and only one will get in. They did not want to select any of the top LBs at the risk of having someone they think is more deserving (Nobis and Dave Robinson for example) get denied due to competing with each other at the same position.
Having 2 additional defensive finalists also frees the voters to look harder at the modern offensive finalists. Wouldn't be shocked if Deion ends up as the only modern defensive player selected this year.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Anyone heard from DC since his "I'm now selling off" post? I emailed him last week about a couple of cards, but no response yet.
Jasen >>
Hi Jasen,
A collector friend of mine had a similar experience. Sent an e-mail, no response after quite a while. Maybe it's coming?
<< <i>
<< <i>Anyone heard from DC since his "I'm now selling off" post? I emailed him last week about a couple of cards, but no response yet.
Jasen >>
Hi Jasen,
A collector friend of mine had a similar experience. Sent an e-mail, no response after quite a while. Maybe it's coming? >>
Jon has quite a bit going on right now. Last we spoke, he made a list of all those who staked a claim to any cards prior to hitting the market.
So I would say be patient. If you have an interest send an e-mail. At some point in the near future you will hear something from him or Rick at Mint State who is going to be handling all of the sales for him. He's got alot a million dollar collection, it's probably going to take some time to line out all of the issues.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Hanburger in particular is as deserving as they come in my book. I hope he is the correct selection this year. >>
Agreed.
I know the most popular card of choice for the last decade is the Topps Chrome RC's but I noticed that a PSA 10 Rivers recently sold for $10. Surely there is something more valuable that fits within our criteria. (Non auto, serial # >1K)
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>Does anyone know Philip Rivers "rookie card of choice"? The one that will eventually be put in the future HOF RC set. (pending a vote of course)
I know the most popular card of choice for the last decade is the Topps Chrome RC's but I noticed that a PSA 10 Rivers recently sold for $10. Surely there is something more valuable that fits within our criteria. (Non auto, serial # >1K)
Dave >>
Dave,
I think this is going to be the case for most, if not all, of the newer RCs, particularly those who were higher-round draft picks. I started a registry for Larry Fitzgerald RCs, which are the same year as Rivers. They have the Topps Chrome with a 1.5 set weighting. There are a ton of cards weighted 2.0, although I'd have to check to see which ones are #/999 or better. All cards in the registry weighted higher than 2.0 are auto'd, including his Ulimate Collection, Contenders RC Ticket, SP Authentic, SPx, etc. If the rules for this set remain in place, we will have to include cards for these players which are not all that expensive in PSA 10 grade. I'm not making a judgment as to whether this is good or bad, just stating a fact.
Jasen
Of course, if the page doesn't turn, no one will ever read this...
I upgraded my "72 Rayfield Wright #316 yesterday.
If anyone wants my Wright in a psa 6 for $20.00 shipped let me know.
There is a scan in my NFL HOF RCs set.
Tom
<< <i>Happy holidays everyone.
I upgraded my "72 Rayfield Wright #316 yesterday.
If anyone wants my Wright in a psa 6 for $20.00 shipped let me know.
There is a scan in my NFL HOF RCs set.
Tom >>
you must have won the PSA 8 I was watching on eBay. Congrats.
Yep, that was me, it's a little oc but I got it for for $20 under VCP avg.
Tom
<< <i>
<< <i>Does anyone know Philip Rivers "rookie card of choice"? The one that will eventually be put in the future HOF RC set. (pending a vote of course)
I know the most popular card of choice for the last decade is the Topps Chrome RC's but I noticed that a PSA 10 Rivers recently sold for $10. Surely there is something more valuable that fits within our criteria. (Non auto, serial # >1K)
Dave >>
Dave,
I think this is going to be the case for most, if not all, of the newer RCs, particularly those who were higher-round draft picks. I started a registry for Larry Fitzgerald RCs, which are the same year as Rivers. They have the Topps Chrome with a 1.5 set weighting. There are a ton of cards weighted 2.0, although I'd have to check to see which ones are #/999 or better. All cards in the registry weighted higher than 2.0 are auto'd, including his Ulimate Collection, Contenders RC Ticket, SP Authentic, SPx, etc. If the rules for this set remain in place, we will have to include cards for these players which are not all that expensive in PSA 10 grade. I'm not making a judgment as to whether this is good or bad, just stating a fact.
Jasen >>
It's the modern card market, and it is what it is. Of all the cards we currently do not use, the one I would fight the most against are cards individually numbered lower than /999. Of course that alone eliminates 99% of the auto/jersey/game used/inserts/parallel cards. The danger in going lower to say /500 or /100, is that now we have created a set (which already has over 100 collectors) that at some point a new collector wouldn't be able to start with ANY hopes of completing. This effectively LIMITS the upside value of the set as a whole. As we would likely LOSE collectors who would choose to never start the set with no hope of ever completing it. This set was built for the masses. It is why we used BASE ISSUE rookie cards and not regional, unrealistic issues that would have made completion all but unattainable.
On the bright side, paying $10 for a Phillip Rivers PSA 10 RC allows you to instead use your money on upgrading your 1935 and 1948 RC's...So I'm certainly not complaining...lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Does anyone know Philip Rivers "rookie card of choice"? The one that will eventually be put in the future HOF RC set. (pending a vote of course)
I know the most popular card of choice for the last decade is the Topps Chrome RC's but I noticed that a PSA 10 Rivers recently sold for $10. Surely there is something more valuable that fits within our criteria. (Non auto, serial # >1K)
Dave >>
Dave,
I think this is going to be the case for most, if not all, of the newer RCs, particularly those who were higher-round draft picks. I started a registry for Larry Fitzgerald RCs, which are the same year as Rivers. They have the Topps Chrome with a 1.5 set weighting. There are a ton of cards weighted 2.0, although I'd have to check to see which ones are #/999 or better. All cards in the registry weighted higher than 2.0 are auto'd, including his Ulimate Collection, Contenders RC Ticket, SP Authentic, SPx, etc. If the rules for this set remain in place, we will have to include cards for these players which are not all that expensive in PSA 10 grade. I'm not making a judgment as to whether this is good or bad, just stating a fact.
Jasen >>
It's the modern card market, and it is what it is. Of all the cards we currently do not use, the one I would fight the most against are cards individually numbered lower than /999. Of course that alone eliminates 99% of the auto/jersey/game used/inserts/parallel cards. The danger in going lower to say /500 or /100, is that now we have created a set (which already has over 100 collectors) that at some point a new collector wouldn't be able to start with ANY hopes of completing. This effectively LIMITS the upside value of the set as a whole. As we would likely LOSE collectors who would choose to never start the set with no hope of ever completing it. This set was built for the masses. It is why we used BASE ISSUE rookie cards and not regional, unrealistic issues that would have made completion all but unattainable.
On the bright side, paying $10 for a Phillip Rivers PSA 10 RC allows you to instead use your money on upgrading your 1935 and 1948 RC's...So I'm certainly not complaining...lol
Jason >>
Excellent points that I agree with.
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 hits the nail on the head.
I'm a bid SP and SP Authentic collector. Although I would love to see those cards consistently used for the all-time and HOF sets, it's better for the hobby and those set collectors that we use my accessible cards. Like Jason said, these sets are for the masses.
BTW, the SP Authentic P. Rivers Rc is numbered to 299
<< <i>It's the modern card market, and it is what it is. Of all the cards we currently do not use, the one I would fight the most against are cards individually numbered lower than /999. Of course that alone eliminates 99% of the auto/jersey/game used/inserts/parallel cards. The danger in going lower to say /500 or /100, is that now we have created a set (which already has over 100 collectors) that at some point a new collector wouldn't be able to start with ANY hopes of completing. This effectively LIMITS the upside value of the set as a whole. As we would likely LOSE collectors who would choose to never start the set with no hope of ever completing it. This set was built for the masses. It is why we used BASE ISSUE rookie cards and not regional, unrealistic issues that would have made completion all but unattainable.
As usual, Jason hits the nail on the head.
I'm a bid SP and SP Authentic collector. Although I would love to see those cards consistently used for the all-time and HOF sets, it's better for the hobby and those set collectors that we use my accessible cards. Like Jason said, these sets are for the masses.
BTW, the SP Authentic P. Rivers Rc is numbered to 299 >>
Also an auto AND jersey, I believe...I know the Fitz is.
All you have to do is change the # in the address bar to the next #.
For example, my address bar reads like this.......
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=37&threadid=557010&STARTPAGE=347
So, When this happens again, simply back off the 7 at the end and change it to
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=37&threadid=557010&STARTPAGE=348
Hope that helps.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
Jason Witten 7
Richard Seymour 6
Dwight Freeney 6
Chad Johnson 6
Julius Peppers 6
Troy Polamalu 6
Olin Kreutz 6
Lance Briggs 6
Donovan McNabb 6
Matt Birk 6
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I'd like to add Reggie Wayne to the list. 5 Pro Bowls and 7 straight 1,000-yard seasons. >>
I will add Wayne to my nominee list for the poll....Same for Brees.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
6+ Pro Bowls:
Jason Witten
Richard Seymour
Dwight Freeney
Chad Johnson
Julius Peppers
Troy Polamalu
Olin Kreutz
Lance Briggs
Donovan McNabb
Matt Birk
Other nominees with fewer than 6 Pro Bowls:
Drew Brees
Hines Ward
Edgerrin James
Ty Law
Reggie Wayne
Players who have been HOF Semifinalists (top 25) but are not included on the set:
Kevin Greene-5 times
Steve Tasker-4 times
Joe Jacoby-2 times
Donnie Shell- 1 time
Players who could get their fourth 1st team All-Pro selection (these won't be automatic nominees unless they are 1st team selections):
1-Ronde Barber
2-DeMarcus Ware
3-Jared Allen
Only Ware made the Pro Bowl, so is likely the only of the 3 with a shot. Downfall for Ware is that he's only played 6 seasons. If he blows out a knee in training camp, he won;t have enough longevity to make the HOF, so I don;t know how we can vote him in.
Guys I will be nominating for removal:
Steve At-water-7 straight years has not made Top 25 semifinalist
LeRoy Butler- 5 straight years has not made Top 25 semifinalist
For those who plan on voting. If you are unaware or not familiar with any of these players, take some time in the next few weeks to learn what you can so we all can make logical votes.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Here is my current list of nominees for addition to the Modern set. Still waiting for the All-Pro announcements (first week or so of January).
6+ Pro Bowls:
Jason Witten
Richard Seymour
Dwight Freeney
Chad Johnson
Julius Peppers
Troy Polamalu
Olin Kreutz
Lance Briggs
Donovan McNabb
Matt Birk
Other nominees with fewer than 6 Pro Bowls:
Drew Brees
Hines Ward
Edgerrin James
Ty Law
Reggie Wayne
Players who have been HOF Semifinalists (top 25) but are not included on the set:
Kevin Greene-5 times
Steve Tasker-4 times
Joe Jacoby-2 times
Donnie Shell- 1 time
Players who could get their fourth 1st team All-Pro selection (these won't be automatic nominees unless they are 1st team selections):
1-Ronde Barber
2-DeMarcus Ware
3-Jared Allen
Only Ware made the Pro Bowl, so is likely the only of the 3 with a shot. Downfall for Ware is that he's only played 6 seasons. If he blows out a knee in training camp, he won;t have enough longevity to make the HOF, so I don;t know how we can vote him in.
Guys I will be nominating for removal:
Steve At-water-7 straight years has not made Top 25 semifinalist
LeRoy Butler- 5 straight years has not made Top 25 semifinalist
For those who plan on voting. If you are unaware or not familiar with any of these players, take some time in the next few weeks to learn what you can so we all can make logical votes. >>
maybe we should just eliminate the safety position from this set, as we are proposing removing the two starting safeties from the 1990's All Decade Team.
the safety position is one that receives some of the few considerations in HOF voting to start with...other than Ronnie Lott. What other recent safety has gotten in without quite a bit of debate over years of waiting or having to go the SR route.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
maybe we should just eliminate the safety position from this set, as we are proposing removing the two starting safeties from the 1990's All Decade Team.
the safety position is one that receives some of the few considerations in HOF voting to start with...other than Ronnie Lott. What other recent safety has gotten in without quite a bit of debate over years of waiting or having to go the SR route. >>
Actually, Lott wasn't a true Safety either since he played CB his first 5 seasons. Rod Woodson, same thing.
I'm sure most of us THOUGHT At-water and Butler would be HOFers when we voted to add these guys. Unfortunately, the voters think otherwise. Kenny Easley was a pure Safety and 1st Team 1980's All-Decade who has never received voter consideration, nor is on our set either. My basic rule of thumb is five years without making the top 25, and the player is no longer a "likely" HOFer. Which is what this set is supposed to consist. If these guys can ever crack the top 25, they may be worth a look again. Until then, they look kinda dumb on the set IMO, especially when we have say Kevin Greene NOT on the set who has been in the top 25 the last 5 years in a row.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
maybe we should just eliminate the safety position from this set, as we are proposing removing the two starting safeties from the 1990's All Decade Team.
the safety position is one that receives some of the few considerations in HOF voting to start with...other than Ronnie Lott. What other recent safety has gotten in without quite a bit of debate over years of waiting or having to go the SR route. >>
Actually, Lott wasn't a true Safety either since he played CB his first 5 seasons. Rod Woodson, same thing.
I'm sure most of us THOUGHT At-water and Butler would be HOFers when we voted to add these guys. Unfortunately, the voters think otherwise. Kenny Easley was a pure Safety and 1st Team 1980's All-Decade who has never received voter consideration, nor is on our set either. My basic rule of thumb is five years without making the top 25, and the player is no longer a "likely" HOFer. Which is what this set is supposed to consist. If these guys can ever crack the top 25, they may be worth a look again. Until then, they look kinda dumb on the set IMO, especially when we have say Kevin Greene NOT on the set who has been in the top 25 the last 5 years in a row. >>
just offering up my thoughts as to why i dont collect this set actively anymore. we start to put players on that arent even retired, yet they could be removed from the set 10 years after they finally retire. doesnt seem to make much sense. but thats just my 2 cents.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
just offering up my thoughts as to why i dont collect this set actively anymore. we start to put players on that arent even retired, yet they could be removed from the set 10 years after they finally retire. doesnt seem to make much sense. but thats just my 2 cents. >>
Well, certainly that is your prerogative. I stopped collecting all the Key Card sets for similar reasons.
This set, when we started it, was always meant to be for us and by us. We, as a group here on the boards, ALWAYS vote for who we think should be added and who should not. Not your opinion or my opinion. But a group opinion. I did not vote for every player currently listed, and don't agree that everyone there is a "likely" HOFer. But that's just my opinion. The majority thought otherwise. This set was also always meant to be very liquid, so it is not for the faint of heart. 4-7 guys come OFF the set every year as they are elected to the HOF, or moved to the Senior candidate pool. NOT ONE CARD OR PLAYER on this set will be there forever. And players we added, who no longer look like they will be selected for the HOF are eligible to be removed IF and only if the majority vote to remove them.
The set as meant as a place that we (HOF Rookie Player set collectors) can have a checklist and list our cards BEFORE gaining election into the HOF. It lets us know EXACTLY which cards will be going to the HOF RC set, because when a player is elected who is a part of the Future Modern or Senior set, that card goes DIRECTLY to the HOF set. No vote, no poll, no discussion on which card. Because we've already had the discussion.
It's not for everyone, but neither is the Favre Ticket Stub set. But there are 48 collectors who are getting ahead of the curve towards getting the correct rookie cards that will LIKELY be added to the HOF RC set at some point. My posts with a heads up for the nominees and the removals are specifically for those 48 collectors. Not sure why someone not even collecting the set could care less who's getting voted on and who is getting voted off.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
My posts with a heads up for the nominees and the removals are specifically for those 48 collectors. Not sure why someone not even collecting the set could care less who's getting voted on and who is getting voted off. >>
though i am not actively collecting the set at present my set is still listed and i will eventually return. plus i do a interest in following the debate for potential future HOF enshrinees. since i am not an active collector i dont vote for the canidates that are brought up on the board or through the email requests either, so i dont dilute the votes with someone that isnt active.
i thought the board was a place to express your thoughts whether or not you were actively collecting a set. i guess thats not the case.
i will keep any of my comments in the future soley concerning each canidates worthiness about being in the HOF rather than whether a card belongs in which set or how the set is managed until the time that i return to collecting this set.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
though i am not actively collecting the set at present my set is still listed and i will eventually return. plus i do a interest in following the debate for potential future HOF enshrinees. since i am not an active collector i dont vote for the canidates that are brought up on the board or through the email requests either, so i dont dilute the votes with someone that isnt active.
i thought the board was a place to express your thoughts whether or not you were actively collecting a set. i guess thats not the case.
i will keep any of my comments in the future soley concerning each canidates worthiness about being in the HOF rather than whether a card belongs in which set or how the set is managed until the time that i return to collecting this set. >>
No one said you can't share your thoughts on it. I guess I just was/am not understanding the point of your posted thoughts. First you say we should just eliminate the Safety position altogether since At-water and Butler will be nominated for removal. Which makes even less sense than just removing the 2 players who have not made the top 25 in the last 5+ years. Then you say it is why you don't actively collect the set due to the fact we add active players and then can vote for their removal down the road after circumstances change.
Help me understand what your point is here. Is your opinion that no card should ever be removed from the set? Even though seniors and HOF electees are removed every year? Should a player who was once regarded by the collectors of this set as a HOF caliber guy should REMAIN on the set even though the actual HOF voters are giving them ZERO support? Isn;t the set meant to be a place where we house cards of LIKELY HOFers? Is someone who can not even make the top 25 a "likely" HOFer? Can't situations and how players are regarded CHANGE especially after their playing careers are over? What exactly is the reason you do not actively collect the set? You don't like the player selection? Because NO PLAYER (as of yet) has ever been VOTED OFF the set, so certainly that can't be your reasoning. Should we not feature ACTIVE players on the set? Honestly, this was the #1 reason the set got started so guys could be purchasing the CORRECT CARD of future HOFers before they get elected. Some collectors actually enjoy the modern cards.
Your response will surely help quell my mis-understanding. I was not trying to hurt your feelings, I just am not getting the point of what you are trying to say here.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Help me understand what your point is here. Is your opinion that no card should ever be removed from the set? Even though seniors and HOF electees are removed every year? Should a player who was once regarded by the collectors of this set as a HOF caliber guy should REMAIN on the set even though the actual HOF voters are giving them ZERO support? Isn;t the set meant to be a place where we house cards of LIKELY HOFers? Is someone who can not even make the top 25 a "likely" HOFer? Can't situations and how players are regarded CHANGE especially after their playing careers are over? What exactly is the reason you do not actively collect the set? You don't like the player selection? Because NO PLAYER (as of yet) has ever been VOTED OFF the set, so certainly that can't be your reasoning. Should we not feature ACTIVE players on the set? Honestly, this was the #1 reason the set got started so guys could be purchasing the CORRECT CARD of future HOFers before they get elected. Some collectors actually enjoy the modern cards.
Your response will surely help quell my mis-understanding. I was not trying to hurt your feelings, I just am not getting the point of what you are trying to say here.
Jason >>
first off their are no hurt feelings. nothing said on any message board would ever hurt my feelings.
now on to your questions. i will do my best to answer each.
first let me state that i see removing a card from a set because it has either moved into the HOF set or the SR set completely different from removing a card completely. that should answer your first two questions. as for the third, yes its for likely HOFers but they are our choices as likely HOFers. as for the 4th question, let me answer that question with a question...is a former player dropped from consideration after by the HOF or its voters after they havent made the final 25 cut after the first 5 years? if not, if that player then all of a sudden makes the top 25 cut would the card be readded to the set for another period of time. of course things can always change but again does that mean a card could be dropped and then readded. i dont think (though I may be wrong) that the Pro Football HOF voting is different from the baseball HOF, in which i belive at some point people get dropped after not getting enough votes.
as for the reason that i am not currently actively collecting this set (which means i am not buying or actively searching for cards of non "locks", however i am not selling the cards that i currently own either) is a few fold. for awhile we were down to 1 income for a year which means i contracted all of my collecting expect in a few small cases. after that year i have slowly restarted but have still kept my focus fairly narrow. so its hard to say that i am actively collecting this set.
as for the players selected so far in the set i dont have that much of an argument for many but i find it hard to think that with only 1 kicker currenlty in the HOF that the 3 that we have on our set are all going to make it to the HOF. however with some of the new players that will be up for a vote i have a hard to seeing how a witten or a chad johnson is going to crack the top 25 with the players already waiting on that set arent even eligible for voting yet. then again the vote that takes place will tell if they get added. i do think that at times active players get a jump with good starts to their career. as we all know probowl voting can often go more on rep many years then actual production that year or the rest of the players in that conference at TE. for example for quite awhile you had gates and gonzo in the AFC, while the TE's in the NFC werent the strongest which i my mind accounts a lot for the 6 probowls for a witten. so i think i answered most of your questions. let me know if i have missed any.
now one for you. what is would be the removal of a candidate from the SR set other than election to the HOF? to be honest, as much as i like jerry kramer and think he should be in he has been a finalist how many times and not been elected by many of the same voters that put him on the all 75th NFL team. if those voters wont how will newer voters elect him that never saw him play? it seems like we dont have a policy for ever removing someone from the SR set other than election. clearly as we have seen in the past the SR selections can be even more of a crap shoot than the modern. more than likely it is going to take the SR selection process to add an At**water or a Bulter...however its not that they arent worthy its more of a numbers game. over the last few years look how many first year elections were made. that has created quite a backlog of candidates many of which were probably really fighting for the top 25 to start with. since 2004 look at the names of many of the modern selections many were first year or second year candidates. with the elways, marinos, sanders, smiths (both), rice, young and white many other worthy candidates never came off the list as those selections were so much greater players that they tended to be elected all by themselves with only SR selections (take for example 2004 and 2005). finally they started clearing some of the back log in 2006 to some extent but more so in 2007-08. we all know its easy picks for QB, RB and WR. but lbs and dbs are always tough to sort through. i feel that to say that after your first 5 years is pretty short of a window to recommend starting to pull the plug.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
...is a former player dropped from consideration after by the HOF or its voters after they havent made the final 25 cut after the first 5 years? if not, if that player then all of a sudden makes the top 25 cut would the card be readded to the set for another period of time. of course things can always change but again does that mean a card could be dropped and then readded. i dont think (though I may be wrong) that the Pro Football HOF voting is different from the baseball HOF, in which i belive at some point people get dropped after not getting enough votes. >>
No, a player is ELIGIBLE for induction via modern HOF vote 5 years after retirement, up until 25 years after retirement, in which case they move to the senior pool of candidates. There were 114 nominees this year alone. If we were to have every nominee/HOF eligible player represented on the set, the set would be HUGE and would contain a majority of players who will never make the HOF. This was not the purpose of the set when it was created. YES, a player could be readded at some point. If Butler or At-water were to get voted off the set, and 10 years down the road make the top 25 or better yet become a top 15 finalist, then I'd be first in line to vote them back on the set.
<< <i> however with some of the new players that will be up for a vote i have a hard to seeing how a witten or a chad johnson is going to crack the top 25 with the players already waiting on that set arent even eligible for voting yet. >>
AGREED. I won't be casting votes for Witten or Johnson, but that doesn't mean THE MAJORITY won't vote for them. 6 Pro Bowls and 4 First Team All-Pros are just baseline numbers that I use for AUTOMATIC nominations. We usually end up with anywhere between 2-5 new additions each year. Out of 10-20 nominees. So don't confuse my nominee list as a list of new additions to the set. We go with MAJORITY vote here, and not all of us share the same opinion on players. Just like the actual HOF voters do not.
<< <i>now one for you. what is would be the removal of a candidate from the SR set other than election to the HOF? to be honest, as much as i like jerry kramer and think he should be in he has been a finalist how many times and not been elected by many of the same voters that put him on the all 75th NFL team. if those voters wont how will newer voters elect him that never saw him play? it seems like we dont have a policy for ever removing someone from the SR set other than election. clearly as we have seen in the past the SR selections can be even more of a crap shoot than the modern. more than likely it is going to take the SR selection process to add an At**water or a Bulter...however its not that they arent worthy its more of a numbers game. over the last few years look how many first year elections were made. that has created quite a backlog of candidates many of which were probably really fighting for the top 25 to start with. since 2004 look at the names of many of the modern selections many were first year or second year candidates. with the elways, marinos, sanders, smiths (both), rice, young and white many other worthy candidates never came off the list as those selections were so much greater players that they tended to be elected all by themselves with only SR selections (take for example 2004 and 2005). finally they started clearing some of the back log in 2006 to some extent but more so in 2007-08. we all know its easy picks for QB, RB and WR. but lbs and dbs are always tough to sort through. i feel that to say that after your first 5 years is pretty short of a window to recommend starting to pull the plug. >>
What you are missing is that the Senior set is MUCH broader and MUCH more speculative than the modern set. These sets are not comprised or built in the same way. The mere fact that a Senior candidate had to get PASSED UP for election for at least 25 years guarantees that none of them are LIKELY or LOCK future HOFers. But the process to remove is the exact same. Nomination, then majority vote. To date, not one modern OR senior candidate has ever been "voted off", but we've seen nominations and votes for guys like At-Water, Jason Elam and Jimmy Smith in the past. Just never a majority. When placing MY vote to remove, I base it on what the HOF voters are telling me. That provides the best evidence as to who maybe is no longer a LIKELY HOFer. Just my opinion.
Also, as far as the 5 year time frame goes, we are talking TOP 25...Not 5 years of not making the HOF. Not 5 years not making the top 15. 5 years not making the TOP 25! Now, does that automatically mean the player will never make the HOF? Of course not. Look at a guy like Rickey Jackson. He had never even made the top 25 until 2008. Then 2009, he was OUT of the top 25 again. 2010 rolls around, he gets a big push and ends up getting elected over a guy like Richard Dent who'd been a finalist for the 5 of the previous 6 years. Dent had even made the cut to the final 10 the previous 3 years. BUT, was Rickey Jackson on our set prior to being named a semifinalist or even a finalist? NO he wasn't. Because his election would be deemed by most an UNLIKELY election.
hey, vote for removal is just that a vote. I will be lobbying for the removal of At-water just as I have the past couple of years. Because the evidence (7 years not in the top 25) it showing me that he is not LIKELY to ever get inducted. The set wasn't built to house maybe/possible/10% chance guys, but rather better than 50%, more like 75% type guys. If you see others who you do not think belong, by all means NOMINATE THEM. That was my purpose for posting her BEFORE we vote in a few weeks. Get all the nominations lined up for my initial post. Anyone you nominate for addition or removal I will add to my initial poll/vote post. Then we let the majority decide who to add and who to take off. We all have different opinions, so that is why letting the votes decide always works best. How can any of us complain when we go with majority opinion. You can disagree, which I have plenty of times, but you have to at least respect the process. Much like the actual HOF vote.
Hopefully this dialogue has helped us both understand the alternate points of view.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.