Here are a couple more of mine that will be going in along with the Unitas looking for the new half grades. Any predictions?
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 are a couple more of mine that will be going in along with the Unitas looking for the new half grades. Any predictions? >>
It's impossible to say until we see some examples, but if ever there were cards screaming for a half point bump, those are they. The Lary and Hutson might have soft corner issues, which could make them less attractive to upgrade relative to the rest of the submission. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.
<< <i>Here are a couple more of mine that will be going in along with the Unitas looking for the new half grades. Any predictions? >>
It's impossible to say until we see some examples, but if ever there were cards screaming for a half point bump, those are they. The Lary and Hutson might have soft corner issues, which could make them less attractive to upgrade relative to the rest of the submission. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.
Joe >>
Agreed..Centering on the Alworth might not be good enough either..I've actually got about 60 cards going in, some on the $35 and some for $13. All HOF RCs. I typically run about 15% FULL GRADE bumps when I've sent in review orders on the past. If I can get anywhere near that at just the .5 I'll be stoked!
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.
Those are some awesome cards. That Thorpe is really cool.
I have been working on the set about a grade lower then most, which makes pickups pretty cheap. Here are a couple 7's I think are bumpable....
Those two look better then my other 7's of that era at least....not very valuable if bumped, but if I was a member and sending a bunch of stuff already....I will send them for the $10.00.
Clear Skies, Mark
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Mark, wait for the next $5 special...They ran like 4 of them last year...
Definitely the Page. Hard to tell from the scan, but I'm not sure what's keeping it from being a PSA 8 much less a 7.5...
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
The only problem with resubing those two is figuring out whether it would be "worth it". The pricing between the 7 and 8's are maybe $20? It may be better to sell those as is and buy a higher grade if that's what your after. Just my opinion of course..
<< <i>The only problem with resubing those two is figuring out whether it would be "worth it". The pricing between the 7 and 8's are maybe $20? It may be better to sell those as is and buy a higher grade if that's what your after. Just my opinion of course..
Dave >>
I agree....they just look nicer then my other 7's. I am not even a member.....I like the modern Topps sets and modern football cards, and just recently purchased all those sets again. To be honest since I am not a PSA member and it is pretty much cheaper for me to just purchase cards, or at least until my Marcus Allen and Young registry sets require me to join to add cards. I tend to purchase most of the PSA 10's for under $10....so why pay $100 and then $6 to try for $10's. At some point I will have to, but not yet.
I don't know if the Little is outside of the o/c guidelines of an 8 but I imagine not, PSA is a little too free with o/c.
Edit to add: I am Mark's Cards on the registry....somewhere in the low 60's I think. (Talk about a tough set to move up places in).
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Jason, that Unitas is fantastic! What a great looking card.
I went through my pre-70's stuff tonight. I have 18 cards I'll send in that are worth a .5 bump. Most of them are 8's that are valued <$100 but in 9's are $250+, so at $5 or $6 it's worth the investment. Still lame that I have to make the decision to do this, but it is what it is.
"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'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.
Assuming the corners are sharp, I would guess that the Canadeo, Lary and Alworth are the best bets for bumps. The Hutson and Jurgensen might also have a shot. From the scans, I don't see the others catching the .5. Also, what's keep the Canadeo from a 9 (the centering is borderline, but meets the criteria -- even with the slant)? That puppy looks terrific!
Oh, and that Unitas is sweeeeeeet! Is it just the lower right that's soft? That's a NR-MT+ card in my book! But then again, I wrote the definitions for SGC (although Joe Merkel came up with the middle or split grade system). The only question that remains is what PSA will use as their definition.
<< <i>It will still be PSA 7s for 1933-1948, PSA 8s for 1950-1969, PSA 9s for 1970-1987, and PSA 10's for all the new stuff. The half grades will be a luxury, but not a necessity for me. To me, a 7.5 is still a 7, just a nicer one..And a PSA 8.5 is still a PSA 8, just a nicer one. Of course eye appeal will always play a part and I always bid in my price range depending on how nice the card presents itself. Half grades won;t change that for me either. This is why I have somewhat embraced the idea. I've got 47 cards I will be sending in on the $13 special at the end of the month to see if any will get the new .5 bumps. I will be shocked if at least 25% (about 12) of them don;t bump. These are all HOF RCs, and all are valued between $100 and $500 in SMR. One or two bumps of these will cover the cost of grading fees, and any of the others will just be added value to my collection. >>
I was just thinking.....I wonder if you sent in your cards, if it would be possible to get a full grade bump instead of .5. All the graders cant' be that consistent. Just a thought..
<< <i>It will still be PSA 7s for 1933-1948, PSA 8s for 1950-1969, PSA 9s for 1970-1987, and PSA 10's for all the new stuff. The half grades will be a luxury, but not a necessity for me. To me, a 7.5 is still a 7, just a nicer one..And a PSA 8.5 is still a PSA 8, just a nicer one. Of course eye appeal will always play a part and I always bid in my price range depending on how nice the card presents itself. Half grades won;t change that for me either. This is why I have somewhat embraced the idea. I've got 47 cards I will be sending in on the $13 special at the end of the month to see if any will get the new .5 bumps. I will be shocked if at least 25% (about 12) of them don;t bump. These are all HOF RCs, and all are valued between $100 and $500 in SMR. One or two bumps of these will cover the cost of grading fees, and any of the others will just be added value to my collection. >>
I was just thinking.....I wonder if you sent in your cards, if it would be possible to get a full grade bump instead of .5. All the graders cant' be that consistent. Just a thought..
Dave >>
then why are they going to a 0.5 scale if they cant be consistent. but from what i read they wont go up a fully grade either a 0.5 bump or none.
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>It will still be PSA 7s for 1933-1948, PSA 8s for 1950-1969, PSA 9s for 1970-1987, and PSA 10's for all the new stuff. The half grades will be a luxury, but not a necessity for me. To me, a 7.5 is still a 7, just a nicer one..And a PSA 8.5 is still a PSA 8, just a nicer one. Of course eye appeal will always play a part and I always bid in my price range depending on how nice the card presents itself. Half grades won;t change that for me either. This is why I have somewhat embraced the idea. I've got 47 cards I will be sending in on the $13 special at the end of the month to see if any will get the new .5 bumps. I will be shocked if at least 25% (about 12) of them don;t bump. These are all HOF RCs, and all are valued between $100 and $500 in SMR. One or two bumps of these will cover the cost of grading fees, and any of the others will just be added value to my collection. >>
I was just thinking.....I wonder if you sent in your cards, if it would be possible to get a full grade bump instead of .5. All the graders cant' be that consistent. Just a thought..
Dave >>
then why are they going to a 0.5 scale if they cant be consistent. but from what i read they wont go up a fully grade either a 0.5 bump or none. >>
A full grade bump is what they've always been in the past! This review system is nothing new guys. PSA began offering that service a year or 2 ago. I've sent in probably 50 cards for review and gotten about 10-15 full grade bumps.
Its about the card...If the grade don't fit, you must re-submit. Or you can sell them to me and I'll do it..lol
For those wanting 100% consistency, that isn't going to happen until they computerize the grading process. As long as humans are doing it, it is subjective. Same goes for SGC, BGS, GAI ANY grading company. All they offer is an opinion on the card.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Jason, Do you expect any full grade bumps? I just wonder how PSA is going to handle it initally. You would think they would throw in a full grade bump here or there so more people would be likely to send cards for review....
<< <i>Jason, Do you expect any full grade bumps? I just wonder how PSA is going to handle it initally. You would think they would throw in a full grade bump here or there so more people would be likely to send cards for review....
Dave >>
Well, based on what I am sending in, I'm not expecting any. I've previously sent any/all cards I thought would pull a full grade bump. Others, like the Unitas, I've never sent because i didn't think they warranted PSA 9s. But 8.5 is a different story.
I think it might make it harder to get the full grade bumps, simply because PSA will have that middle grade to fall back on. Although 90% of my full grade bumps in the past were PSA 9 to PSA 10. Only a couple 7s to 8s and 8s to 9s in the past. There's just a bigger difference (usually) in card quality in those grades.
I know I will be a strong shopper for the .5 grades in hopes of going up to the next full grade. If a PSA 8 can be a PSA 9, then obviously an 8.5 would be even closer. Just takes getting the right grader who sees things my way...lol
I'm very picky though, sending cards or review and/or crack and resubmit isn't free. Anything I re-send will have had to pass 3 different inspection levels of my own over a 3 week period. That's my process anyway, because even I can see different things on different cards on different days. No doubt the graders are no different. Even going through my own process which uses 10x loupe, digital caliper for centering, etc, etc. I still only run about 15-20% bumps on what I send in. I've got a few cards that have been to PSA multiple times, and I've gotten bumps on some during their 2nd or 3rd trip. I don't think I've sent any more than 3 times.
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.
Now THAT'S how you take the ebay gamble and win...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.
Now THAT'S how you take the ebay gamble and win...lol
Jason >>
I was in awe when I rec'd the card..because the scan wasn't that great. The centering is perfect, there aren't any nicks on the edges/corners and the picture is very clean. It's definately PSA 9 worthy..and I'm shocked that it wasn't downgraded to an 8 (which I expected) for some unknown reason.
Regards,
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
"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."
As I continue to decide whether or not to finally add a Stabler rookie to my collection, I also continue to question why he’s even considered a HOF candidate. Obviously the fact that he played for the badass Raiders, had a cool nickname and a loyal following are in his favor, but I just don’t see it.
It’s not fair to compare QBs of separate eras, so let’s look at Stabler vs. Ken Anderson, shall we?
Anderson 1971-1986 192 Games 32,838 Yards 197 TDs 160 INTs 4 Passer Rating Titles 4 Pro Bowls/4 All Pros
Stabler 1970-1984 184 Games 27,938 Yards 194 TDs 222 INTs (Yes 222!) 1 Passer Rating Title 4 Pro Bowls/3 All Pros
Anderson is pretty much an afterthought, while Stabler continues to be in the mix as a semifinalist and occasional finalist. One Super Bowl ring doesn’t mean that much. Just ask Phil Simms. So what’s the deal?
"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."
As I continue to decide whether or not to finally add a Stabler rookie to my collection, I also continue to question why he’s even considered a HOF candidate. Obviously the fact that he played for the badass Raiders, had a cool nickname and a loyal following are in his favor, but I just don’t see it.
It’s not fair to compare QBs of separate eras, so let’s look at Stabler vs. Ken Anderson, shall we?
Anderson 1971-1986 192 Games 32,838 Yards 197 TDs 160 INTs 4 Passer Rating Titles 4 Pro Bowls/4 All Pros
Stabler 1970-1984 184 Games 27,938 Yards 194 TDs 222 INTs (Yes 222!) 1 Passer Rating Title 4 Pro Bowls/3 All Pros
Anderson is pretty much an afterthought, while Stabler continues to be in the mix as a semifinalist and occasional finalist. One Super Bowl ring doesn’t mean that much. Just ask Phil Simms. So what’s the deal? >>
Well, I can't really debate this comparison because I am a Ken Anderson aplogist. I think he belongs right there with the greats of the late 70's early 80's like Stabler. I will give my positives to Stabler though.
I think the reason Stabler gets so much cred is the same reason Tom Brady was getting it PRIOR to this year. It wasn't about the stats, Stabler was a winner. If he didn't play in the same era/conference at the 70's Steelers he would have many more Super Bowl rings. He always made the big play at the big time. You look back at his playoff games:
Take the 1972 Immaculate reception game vs. the Steelers. Stabler had actually led the Raiders to a 4th quarter score to take the lead before that happened. a 30 yard Qb scramble with 1:13 left in the game.
In 1974, he threw 4 TDs against the Dolphins in the playoffs, the game winner coming with :26 seconds left in the game, final score 28-26. The ended up losing to the Steelers in the 74 AFC Championship after the Steelers scored 21 points in the 4th QTR.
1975, The got to the AFC Championship Game for the 3rd straight year..Loosing to the Steelers again 16-10. Stabler, with :17 seconds to play hit Cliff Branch for 37 yards down to the 15 yard line but Branch couldn't get out of bounds and time expired.
1976, AFC Divisional round, Stabler scored on a 1 yd QB sneak with :10 seconds left to overcome a 21-10 deficit and win 24-21..4th straight AFC Championship game..Finally the beat the Steelers 24-7. In his only Super Bowl, The Raiders beat the Vikes 32-14, Stabler was 12-19, 180 yds and 1 TD. Doesn't sound like much, but in those days that was an impressive line.
1977, FIFTH consecutive AFC Championship game. To get there the Raiders had to come back and beat Baltimore in double OT. One of the NFL's famous plays "The Ghost to the Post" Stabler to Casper (this helped Casper make the HOF). Stabler had 345 yds passing and 3 TDs in the game.. Once again, lost a close AFC Championship to the Broncos. Stabler had them rally to score 14 points in the 4th...
The stats don't always tell the whole story..All of the above are primary reasons that John Madden, Fred Biletnikoff and Dave Casper all made the HOF without having big stats.
At the time Stabler was also the fastest to 100 wins in history (150 game) surpassing Johnny Unitas for that record. Tom Brady has the record now I do beleive.
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.
Agreed that the stats do not tell the whole story. That may be more true for the football HOF (see Namath, Swann, Hornung, etc.) than any other sport. BUT when I see a QB who put up these type of seasons, it certainly does not scream HOF to me:
I think Anderson and Simms are both more deserving of the HOF than Stabler. Of the 3, Anderson is the only deserving guy IMO.
"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>Agreed that the stats do not tell the whole story. That may be more true for the football HOF (see Namath, Swann, Hornung, etc.) than any other sport. BUT when I see a QB who put up these type of seasons, it certainly does not scream HOF to me:
I think Anderson and Simms are both more deserving of the HOF than Stabler. Of the 3, Anderson is the only deserving guy IMO. >>
Well alot of QBs have bad looking seasons..Especially in that era...The rules didn't aid the QB or WR at ALL.
Bradshaw: 1970 6 TD 24 INT 1971 13 TD 22 INT 1973 10 TD 15 INT 1974 7 TD 8 INT 1976 10 TD 9 INT 1977 17 TD 19 INT 1979 26 TD 25 INT 1980 24 TD 22 INT
Both Stabler and Bradshaw played in a run the ball, stretch the field offense, and they both led their teams to multiple playoff seasons. The good and bad on Ken Anderson is that he was one of the first QBs to play in a West Coast Offense. He was one of the first to put up the high completion type stats, but if you check his avg. yds per attempt you'll see he's much lower than most if not all of his contemporaries. Then again, he has amazing stats for the era in which he played. People forget Anderson was the MVP of league at one time, and I too think he is equally deserving as Stabler, but Stabler performed consistenly well on the biggest stage, while Anderson was never known for being a great come from behind guy. Stabler became a legend, while Anderson was just a good QB. Take away a couple of players from the Steel Curtain defense and you might be talking about Stabler in the same breath as Bradshaw right now.
Simms, I've never been a huge fan. He's ok, always seemed to play well, but I never felt he was a key reason the Giants were winning. When the Giants had Hostetler in they didn't miss a beat. I wouldn't be totally against Simms making the HOF because he does have descent stats and a Super Bowl MVP, but definitely would think Stabler and Anderson would go before him. Both Stabler and Anderson have been in the final 15 multiple times, Simms has never even made the final 25, so I think the voters pretty much feel the same way.
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.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
The mailman brought my oldest PSA card, and the lowest graded card I now own.
I think it is a 6.5
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I have completed my research on some of the more modern rookies that we might be shopping for down the road for this as well as other HOF and Key Card sets.
I went through each player's rookie card history and took out any/all auto/jersey/game used and insert/parallel cards. I also limited the individually numbered cards to 999 or higher. It's possible PSA could go lower, but I would hope not.
Take a look at what I have and let me know if you see any errors (missing or included that shouldn't be). A few of these I haven't been able to actually lay eyes on yet to confirm that they qualify for our sets. Also, some players have multiple card options as they have cards of similar/equal value. This is from 2001 to 2004.
Steve Hutchinson----2001------Crown Royale#185 LaDanian Tomlinson-2001------Topps Chrome#221 Steve Smith-----------2001------Topps Chrome#223 Drew Brees-----------2001-------Topps Chrome#229 Reggie Wayne--------2001------Topps Chrome#250 Chad Johnson--------2001------Topps Chrome#259 Marcus Stroud--------2001------Topps Chrome#263 Richard Seymour-----2001------Topps Chrome#282 Todd Heap------------2001-------Topps Chrome#293 T.J. Houshmandzadeh--2001---Topps Chrome#298 Brian Westbrook-----2002------SP Authentic#157 OR SPX#133 Ed Reed---------------2002-------SPX#99 OR Topps Chrome#208 Dwight Freeney------2002------SPX#114 OR Topps Chrome#171 John Henderson-----2002------SPX#117 OR Topps Chrome#201 Clinton Portis---------2002------SPX#122 OR Topps Chrome#181 Julius Peppers--------2002------SPX#143 OR Topps Chrome#214 Jeremy Shockey------2002------Topps Chrome#172 Roy Williams----------2002------Topps Chrome#176 Alan Faneca-----------2002------Upper Deck XL#362 Lance Briggs----------2003------Bowman#120 Antonio Gates--------2003------Leaf R&S#132 Jason Witten---------2003------SP Authentic#199 Carson Palmer-------2003------Topps Chrome#166 Anquan Boldin--------2003------Topps Chrome#203 Kevin Williams--------2003------Topps Chrome#214 Willis McGahee-------2003------Topps Chrome#215 Larry Johnson--------2003------Topps Chrome#220 Andre Johnson-------2003------Topps Chrome#235 Troy Polamalu--------2003------SP Authentic#120 OR Topps Chrome#274 OR Leaf R&S#250 Willie Parker----------2004------Leaf R&S#181 Steven Jackson------2004------Playoff Prestige#169 OR Topps Chrome#180 Bob Sanders---------2004------SP Authentic#146 OR SPX#135 Ben Rothlisberger---2004------Topps Chrome#166 Larry Fitzgerald------2004------Topps Chrome#215
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 would prefer to stick with Chrome for as many as possible. Just makes it easier to remember when you see one on ebay. I would think that with how topps has dealt with chrome they will be the higher priced RC out of those that arent numbered under 999. I think we all need to really stick to holding the RC card to card numbered to 999 at the lowest. We should have some power over that as they will be voted on at least for the majority of modern HOFers that will be added starting in the next 8 years or so.
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
Thanks for putting that list together. In my limited research, I think 2002 Topps Chrome has a slight advantage over SPX in terms of value. I agree with all the 2001 Topps Chrome choices. I also agree with Dave's comment that SP Authentic should be used over SPX when appropriate. I can't speak for any '03 or '04 cards. I haven't even looked.
"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 haven't done any ebay watching of these really, because for whatever reason many of these cards have very few graded and they haven't been any on ebay the last few weeks.
I think the reason the SPX are up in value is that they are numbered to like 1150 or 1500 in that range. The 2002-2004 Topps Chrome are not numbered.
What would you guys think, as a rule of thumb, of giving specific brands priority over others if/when the value is very close or equal for qualifying cards?
2002, the order would be: 1- SP Authentic (although most from 2002 are auto or jersey or whatver, but some like the Westbrook are not) 2- Topps Chrome 3- SPX 4- Leaf R & S
2004: 1-SP Authentic 2-Topps Chrome 3-SPX 4-Leaf R &S
I'm not sure about the 2004 Playoff Prestige Stephen Jackson. For whatever reason, that card has a higher value than his Topps Chrome and I haven't seen any evidence that tells me its an auto/jersey/or lower than 999 numbered card. Anyone ever seen this card?
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
This looks right to me. Do you know if any of the players on your list only have one rookie card? That always makes things easy.
"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."
The players with multiple cards listed are the only ones with multiple options. The ones with just a single card listed, that card is the clear and easy choice, with nothing else really even close.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
We should start a Future Members of the Future HOF Rookies set
Yes, I am soooo kidding.
"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."
Here's the updated list based on the "weighting" with single card of each player listed.
Steve Hutchinson----2001------Crown Royale#185 LaDanian Tomlinson-2001------Topps Chrome#221 Steve Smith-----------2001------Topps Chrome#223 Drew Brees-----------2001-------Topps Chrome#229 Reggie Wayne--------2001------Topps Chrome#250 Chad Johnson--------2001------Topps Chrome#259 Marcus Stroud--------2001------Topps Chrome#263 Richard Seymour-----2001------Topps Chrome#282 Todd Heap------------2001-------Topps Chrome#293 T.J. Houshmandzadeh--2001---Topps Chrome#298 Brian Westbrook-----2002------SP Authentic#157 Ed Reed---------------2002-------Topps Chrome#208 Dwight Freeney------2002------Topps Chrome#171 John Henderson-----2002------Topps Chrome#201 Clinton Portis---------2002------Topps Chrome#181 Julius Peppers--------2002------Topps Chrome#214 Jeremy Shockey------2002------Topps Chrome#172 Roy Williams----------2002------Topps Chrome#176 Alan Faneca-----------2002------Upper Deck XL#362 Lance Briggs----------2003------Bowman#120 Antonio Gates--------2003------Leaf R&S#132 Jason Witten---------2003------SP Authentic#199 Carson Palmer-------2003------Topps Chrome#166 Anquan Boldin--------2003------Topps Chrome#203 Kevin Williams--------2003------Topps Chrome#214 Willis McGahee-------2003------Topps Chrome#215 Larry Johnson--------2003------Topps Chrome#220 Andre Johnson-------2003------Topps Chrome#235 Troy Polamalu--------2003------SP Authentic#120 Willie Parker----------2004------Leaf R&S#181 Steven Jackson------2004------Playoff Prestige#169 OR Topps Chrome#180 (still not sure on this one) Bob Sanders---------2004------SP Authentic#146 Ben Rothlisberger---2004------Topps Chrome#166 Larry Fitzgerald------2004------Topps Chrome#215
I don't think all of these guys are future HOFers. Some are on this list because they may eventually make the All-Time RB or WR set...Or possibly the 2000 Team of the Decade set in a couple years.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I have a question for you guys. I know his stats don't merit automatic inclusion into a HOF discussion, but how come Hines Ward never gets any love from you guys? From looking at the 'what does the guy mean to his team' perspective, he's got to be up there with most of the current receivers in the game, no?
<< <i>I have a question for you guys. I know his stats don't merit automatic inclusion into a HOF discussion, but how come Hines Ward never gets any love from you guys? From looking at the 'what does the guy mean to his team' perspective, he's got to be up there with most of the current receivers in the game, no?
Mark >>
Hines is a great player for the Steelers. Personally, never had reason to bring him up here. I don't think he will be a HOFer at this point in his career. He will retire with a lot of catches, probably 900+, but also will likely have under 10,000 yards. He's got 4 Pro Bowls and a Super Bowl MVP going for him, but for modern era WRs, you're going to have to have big stats, and or have been the dominant player on the field who was feared by opposing defenses. I don't think Hines falls into any of those categories. He's a SOLID possession WR, one of the best blocking WRs in the game and one of the leaders of the team. His rookie card is already part of the Super Bowl MVPs set if you're looking for which card would be his HOF RC.
I just don't think he is/was a HOF caliber player. If Art Monk and Andre Reed can't get in..Drew Pearson has never gotten in..Del Shofner never gets a mention..Hines doesn't have a prayer. I'd give him about a 10% chance of making the Pro Football HOF, and a 100% chance of making the Steelers HOF...He's just one of those guys who falls one notch below, definitely in the Hall of Very Good..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>I have a question for you guys. I know his stats don't merit automatic inclusion into a HOF discussion, but how come Hines Ward never gets any love from you guys? From looking at the 'what does the guy mean to his team' perspective, he's got to be up there with most of the current receivers in the game, no?
Mark >>
Hines is a great player for the Steelers. Personally, never had reason to bring him up here. I don't think he will be a HOFer at this point in his career. He will retire with a lot of catches, probably 900+, but also will likely have under 10,000 yards. He's got 4 Pro Bowls and a Super Bowl MVP going for him, but for modern era WRs, you're going to have to have big stats, and or have been the dominant player on the field who was feared by opposing defenses. I don't think Hines falls into any of those categories. He's a SOLID possession WR, one of the best blocking WRs in the game and one of the leaders of the team. His rookie card is already part of the Super Bowl MVPs set if you're looking for which card would be his HOF RC.
I just don't think he is/was a HOF caliber player. If Art Monk and Andre Reed can't get in..Drew Pearson has never gotten in..Del Shofner never gets a mention..Hines doesn't have a prayer. I'd give him about a 10% chance of making the Pro Football HOF, and a 100% chance of making the Steelers HOF...He's just one of those guys who falls one notch below, definitely in the Hall of Very Good..lol
Jason >>
I hear you, Jason. It's just a shame to me that guys like Chad Johnson, Houshmandzadeh, etc. that really don't have a respect for the game and how it should be played are getting more recognition than Hines Ward, a truly good guy by all accounts...
<< <i> I hear you, Jason. It's just a shame to me that guys like Chad Johnson, Houshmandzadeh, etc. that really don't have a respect for the game and how it should be played are getting more recognition than Hines Ward, a truly good guy by all accounts... >>
When and who did ANYONE ever say Houshmandzadeh has been better the last few years than Hines Ward...If they did, they need a labotomy...lol..He was better THIS SEASON, but that's about it...
Chad Johnson o nthe other hand has GREAT stats. Really, you can only measure what they do on the field, in the game. All the dancing and whatever, I don't pay attention to that. Johnson is FEARED by opposing defenses. Even with T.J. across from him, he regularly pulls the others teams #1 DB and garners a lot of double coverage. Not only that, but he's averaging 80 catches and 1195 yards per season over his first 7 season. That's a HOF type numbers pace. He's also got the same number of Pro Bowls as Hines in 3 fewer seasons already. Look at All-Pro voting from 2000-2007..Johnson has 45 votes, Hines has 13.
Now I like Hines, don't get me wrong..But I don't know that i would categorize him as a "great respect for the game guy". He may not dance, but he runs A WHOLLLLEEE LOTTAAAA SMAKCK during the game. I've watched a lot of Steelers the last 10 years, and he does more smack talk than Chad Johnson or T.J. He also cries to the officials quite a bit, he's no angel...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.
It's a good debate. That's all I'm trying to accomplish here. I saw Houshmandzadeh in your list above and I didn't see Hines Ward and it just struck me as odd. I know what you were getting at, though. Houshmandzadeh is younger and projected to have better stats, etc.
I know the HOF is more of a numbers game, especially with WRs, but, at the end of the day, I'd rather have Ward on my team than Johnson. There's a reason the Bengals have greatly underachived the last few years and you totally can't discount Johnson's contribution to this. Between his antics on and off the field and his constant undermining of the coaching staff, I feel he does have a negative impact on his team. I just read a stat depicting Carson Palmer's 2007 season and they attributed about 70-80% of his interceptions on routes that were run incorrectly by his WRs. I just know that whenever the Bengals are involved in a big game (doesn't happen too often), Johnson disappears for good portions of the game.
Mark, that list was for players with newer rookie cards from 2001-2004 which we have discussed here many times as not knowing which cards will be eligible and which won't. Ward's rookie is 1998, we all already know which card would be used if he were to make the HOF or any of the other Key Card sets. Its already in the Super Bowl MVP set.
It wasn't a slight to him or Moss or T.O. or Harrison or any of the HOF type WRs..We just already know THE rookie card for anything 2000 and before...
I think Johnson is going to be traded, and if he is we will get a chance to see how he performs in a different system. Personally I think he will do well. If Johnson's antics were the reason the Bengals had a bad season, then they should fire the entire coaching staff for allowing it. From what i watched, they were terrible because of their defense. Rudi was injured, and they were playing from behind quite often so opposing defenses were playing nickel and dime on them. Chad tends to disappear because he's being double covered and palmer doesn;t like to force throws..He's a "safe throw" guy..If Rothlisberger was johnson's QB, he wouldn't have been taken out of the game. Big Ben with stand and gunsling with the best of them, double covered or not, he's not afraid to go fo the tight throws...
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.
Comments
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Here are a couple more of mine that will be going in along with the Unitas looking for the new half grades. Any predictions?
>>
It's impossible to say until we see some examples, but if ever there were cards screaming for a half point bump, those are they. The Lary and Hutson might have soft corner issues, which could make them less attractive to upgrade relative to the rest of the submission. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.
Joe
<< <i>
<< <i>Here are a couple more of mine that will be going in along with the Unitas looking for the new half grades. Any predictions?
>>
It's impossible to say until we see some examples, but if ever there were cards screaming for a half point bump, those are they. The Lary and Hutson might have soft corner issues, which could make them less attractive to upgrade relative to the rest of the submission. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.
Joe >>
Agreed..Centering on the Alworth might not be good enough either..I've actually got about 60 cards going in, some on the $35 and some for $13. All HOF RCs. I typically run about 15% FULL GRADE bumps when I've sent in review orders on the past. If I can get anywhere near that at just the .5 I'll be stoked!
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
I have been working on the set about a grade lower then most, which makes pickups pretty cheap. Here are a couple 7's I think are bumpable....
Those two look better then my other 7's of that era at least....not very valuable if bumped, but if I was a member and sending a bunch of stuff already....I will send them for the $10.00.
Clear Skies,
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Definitely the Page. Hard to tell from the scan, but I'm not sure what's keeping it from being a PSA 8 much less a 7.5...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>The only problem with resubing those two is figuring out whether it would be "worth it". The pricing between the 7 and 8's are maybe $20? It may be better to sell those as is and buy a higher grade if that's what your after. Just my opinion of course..
Dave >>
I agree....they just look nicer then my other 7's. I am not even a member.....I like the modern Topps sets and modern football cards, and just recently purchased all those sets again. To be honest since I am not a PSA member and it is pretty much cheaper for me to just purchase cards, or at least until my Marcus Allen and Young registry sets require me to join to add cards. I tend to purchase most of the PSA 10's for under $10....so why pay $100 and then $6 to try for $10's. At some point I will have to, but not yet.
I don't know if the Little is outside of the o/c guidelines of an 8 but I imagine not, PSA is a little too free with o/c.
Edit to add: I am Mark's Cards on the registry....somewhere in the low 60's I think. (Talk about a tough set to move up places in).
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I went through my pre-70's stuff tonight. I have 18 cards I'll send in that are worth a .5 bump. Most of them are 8's that are valued <$100 but in 9's are $250+, so at $5 or $6 it's worth the investment. Still lame that I have to make the decision to do this, but it is what it is.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
Butkus 9
What do ya'll think about this card?
<< <i>Anyone got $17,500 lying around? If so, here's a Butkus 9 for ya:
Butkus 9
What do ya'll think about this card? >>
I think it used to reside in a PSA 8 holder.
Just my opinion of course...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
'71 Terry Bradshaw NM-MT 8
both going on ebay tonight for those interested.
Assuming the corners are sharp, I would guess that the Canadeo, Lary and Alworth are the best bets for bumps. The Hutson and Jurgensen might also have a shot. From the scans, I don't see the others catching the .5. Also, what's keep the Canadeo from a 9 (the centering is borderline, but meets the criteria -- even with the slant)? That puppy looks terrific!
Oh, and that Unitas is sweeeeeeet! Is it just the lower right that's soft? That's a NR-MT+ card in my book! But then again, I wrote the definitions for SGC (although Joe Merkel came up with the middle or split grade system). The only question that remains is what PSA will use as their definition.
<< <i>It will still be PSA 7s for 1933-1948, PSA 8s for 1950-1969, PSA 9s for 1970-1987, and PSA 10's for all the new stuff. The half grades will be a luxury, but not a necessity for me. To me, a 7.5 is still a 7, just a nicer one..And a PSA 8.5 is still a PSA 8, just a nicer one. Of course eye appeal will always play a part and I always bid in my price range depending on how nice the card presents itself. Half grades won;t change that for me either. This is why I have somewhat embraced the idea. I've got 47 cards I will be sending in on the $13 special at the end of the month to see if any will get the new .5 bumps. I will be shocked if at least 25% (about 12) of them don;t bump. These are all HOF RCs, and all are valued between $100 and $500 in SMR. One or two bumps of these will cover the cost of grading fees, and any of the others will just be added value to my collection.
>>
I was just thinking.....I wonder if you sent in your cards, if it would be possible to get a full grade bump instead of .5. All the graders cant' be that consistent. Just a thought..
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>It will still be PSA 7s for 1933-1948, PSA 8s for 1950-1969, PSA 9s for 1970-1987, and PSA 10's for all the new stuff. The half grades will be a luxury, but not a necessity for me. To me, a 7.5 is still a 7, just a nicer one..And a PSA 8.5 is still a PSA 8, just a nicer one. Of course eye appeal will always play a part and I always bid in my price range depending on how nice the card presents itself. Half grades won;t change that for me either. This is why I have somewhat embraced the idea. I've got 47 cards I will be sending in on the $13 special at the end of the month to see if any will get the new .5 bumps. I will be shocked if at least 25% (about 12) of them don;t bump. These are all HOF RCs, and all are valued between $100 and $500 in SMR. One or two bumps of these will cover the cost of grading fees, and any of the others will just be added value to my collection.
>>
I was just thinking.....I wonder if you sent in your cards, if it would be possible to get a full grade bump instead of .5. All the graders cant' be that consistent. Just a thought..
Dave >>
then why are they going to a 0.5 scale if they cant be consistent. but from what i read they wont go up a fully grade either a 0.5 bump or none.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It will still be PSA 7s for 1933-1948, PSA 8s for 1950-1969, PSA 9s for 1970-1987, and PSA 10's for all the new stuff. The half grades will be a luxury, but not a necessity for me. To me, a 7.5 is still a 7, just a nicer one..And a PSA 8.5 is still a PSA 8, just a nicer one. Of course eye appeal will always play a part and I always bid in my price range depending on how nice the card presents itself. Half grades won;t change that for me either. This is why I have somewhat embraced the idea. I've got 47 cards I will be sending in on the $13 special at the end of the month to see if any will get the new .5 bumps. I will be shocked if at least 25% (about 12) of them don;t bump. These are all HOF RCs, and all are valued between $100 and $500 in SMR. One or two bumps of these will cover the cost of grading fees, and any of the others will just be added value to my collection.
>>
I was just thinking.....I wonder if you sent in your cards, if it would be possible to get a full grade bump instead of .5. All the graders cant' be that consistent. Just a thought..
Dave >>
then why are they going to a 0.5 scale if they cant be consistent. but from what i read they wont go up a fully grade either a 0.5 bump or none. >>
A full grade bump is what they've always been in the past! This review system is nothing new guys. PSA began offering that service a year or 2 ago. I've sent in probably 50 cards for review and gotten about 10-15 full grade bumps.
Its about the card...If the grade don't fit, you must re-submit. Or you can sell them to me and I'll do it..lol
For those wanting 100% consistency, that isn't going to happen until they computerize the grading process. As long as humans are doing it, it is subjective. Same goes for SGC, BGS, GAI ANY grading company. All they offer is an opinion on the card.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>Jason, Do you expect any full grade bumps? I just wonder how PSA is going to handle it initally. You would think they would throw in a full grade bump here or there so more people would be likely to send cards for review....
Dave >>
Well, based on what I am sending in, I'm not expecting any. I've previously sent any/all cards I thought would pull a full grade bump. Others, like the Unitas, I've never sent because i didn't think they warranted PSA 9s. But 8.5 is a different story.
I think it might make it harder to get the full grade bumps, simply because PSA will have that middle grade to fall back on. Although 90% of my full grade bumps in the past were PSA 9 to PSA 10. Only a couple 7s to 8s and 8s to 9s in the past. There's just a bigger difference (usually) in card quality in those grades.
I know I will be a strong shopper for the .5 grades in hopes of going up to the next full grade. If a PSA 8 can be a PSA 9, then obviously an 8.5 would be even closer. Just takes getting the right grader who sees things my way...lol
I'm very picky though, sending cards or review and/or crack and resubmit isn't free. Anything I re-send will have had to pass 3 different inspection levels of my own over a 3 week period. That's my process anyway, because even I can see different things on different cards on different days. No doubt the graders are no different. Even going through my own process which uses 10x loupe, digital caliper for centering, etc, etc. I still only run about 15-20% bumps on what I send in. I've got a few cards that have been to PSA multiple times, and I've gotten bumps on some during their 2nd or 3rd trip. I don't think I've sent any more than 3 times.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Just takes getting the right grader who sees things my way...lol >>
Ain't that the truth.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
LINE # CERT # CARD CARD CO. CARD # CARD NAME VARIETY GRADE
1 07315186 1965 TOPPS 46 WILLIE BROWN N/A 9
Date Received: 11/30/2007
Date of Grades Posted: 01/22/2008
Date Shipped: No Date Specified
I bought that raw on E-Bay for ~$125. The card is amazing...it's a hair from being a 10. Very sweet card.
What is a PSA 9 worth? It's available in exchange for a PSA 8 and cash/trade.
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
Now THAT'S how you take the ebay gamble and win...lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Greg,
Now THAT'S how you take the ebay gamble and win...lol
Jason >>
I was in awe when I rec'd the card..because the scan wasn't that great. The centering is perfect, there aren't any nicks on the edges/corners and the picture is very clean. It's definately PSA 9 worthy..and I'm shocked that it wasn't downgraded to an 8 (which I expected) for some unknown reason.
Regards,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
Congrats on the buy!
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
As I continue to decide whether or not to finally add a Stabler rookie to my collection, I also continue to question why he’s even considered a HOF candidate. Obviously the fact that he played for the badass Raiders, had a cool nickname and a loyal following are in his favor, but I just don’t see it.
It’s not fair to compare QBs of separate eras, so let’s look at Stabler vs. Ken Anderson, shall we?
Anderson
1971-1986
192 Games
32,838 Yards
197 TDs
160 INTs
4 Passer Rating Titles
4 Pro Bowls/4 All Pros
Stabler
1970-1984
184 Games
27,938 Yards
194 TDs
222 INTs (Yes 222!)
1 Passer Rating Title
4 Pro Bowls/3 All Pros
Anderson is pretty much an afterthought, while Stabler continues to be in the mix as a semifinalist and occasional finalist. One Super Bowl ring doesn’t mean that much. Just ask Phil Simms. So what’s the deal?
<< <i>On a separate note...
As I continue to decide whether or not to finally add a Stabler rookie to my collection, I also continue to question why he’s even considered a HOF candidate. Obviously the fact that he played for the badass Raiders, had a cool nickname and a loyal following are in his favor, but I just don’t see it.
It’s not fair to compare QBs of separate eras, so let’s look at Stabler vs. Ken Anderson, shall we?
Anderson
1971-1986
192 Games
32,838 Yards
197 TDs
160 INTs
4 Passer Rating Titles
4 Pro Bowls/4 All Pros
Stabler
1970-1984
184 Games
27,938 Yards
194 TDs
222 INTs (Yes 222!)
1 Passer Rating Title
4 Pro Bowls/3 All Pros
Anderson is pretty much an afterthought, while Stabler continues to be in the mix as a semifinalist and occasional finalist. One Super Bowl ring doesn’t mean that much. Just ask Phil Simms. So what’s the deal? >>
Well, I can't really debate this comparison because I am a Ken Anderson aplogist. I think he belongs right there with the greats of the late 70's early 80's like Stabler. I will give my positives to Stabler though.
I think the reason Stabler gets so much cred is the same reason Tom Brady was getting it PRIOR to this year. It wasn't about the stats, Stabler was a winner. If he didn't play in the same era/conference at the 70's Steelers he would have many more Super Bowl rings. He always made the big play at the big time. You look back at his playoff games:
Take the 1972 Immaculate reception game vs. the Steelers. Stabler had actually led the Raiders to a 4th quarter score to take the lead before that happened. a 30 yard Qb scramble with 1:13 left in the game.
In 1974, he threw 4 TDs against the Dolphins in the playoffs, the game winner coming with :26 seconds left in the game, final score 28-26. The ended up losing to the Steelers in the 74 AFC Championship after the Steelers scored 21 points in the 4th QTR.
1975, The got to the AFC Championship Game for the 3rd straight year..Loosing to the Steelers again 16-10. Stabler, with :17 seconds to play hit Cliff Branch for 37 yards down to the 15 yard line but Branch couldn't get out of bounds and time expired.
1976, AFC Divisional round, Stabler scored on a 1 yd QB sneak with :10 seconds left to overcome a 21-10 deficit and win 24-21..4th straight AFC Championship game..Finally the beat the Steelers 24-7. In his only Super Bowl, The Raiders beat the Vikes 32-14, Stabler was 12-19, 180 yds and 1 TD. Doesn't sound like much, but in those days that was an impressive line.
1977, FIFTH consecutive AFC Championship game. To get there the Raiders had to come back and beat Baltimore in double OT. One of the NFL's famous plays "The Ghost to the Post" Stabler to Casper (this helped Casper make the HOF). Stabler had 345 yds passing and 3 TDs in the game.. Once again, lost a close AFC Championship to the Broncos. Stabler had them rally to score 14 points in the 4th...
The stats don't always tell the whole story..All of the above are primary reasons that John Madden, Fred Biletnikoff and Dave Casper all made the HOF without having big stats.
At the time Stabler was also the fastest to 100 wins in history (150 game) surpassing Johnny Unitas for that record. Tom Brady has the record now I do beleive.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Stabler
1975 16 TDs 24 INTs
1978 16 TDs 30 INTs
1980 13 TDs 28 INTs
1983 9 TDs 18 INTs
I think Anderson and Simms are both more deserving of the HOF than Stabler. Of the 3, Anderson is the only deserving guy IMO.
<< <i>Agreed that the stats do not tell the whole story. That may be more true for the football HOF (see Namath, Swann, Hornung, etc.) than any other sport. BUT when I see a QB who put up these type of seasons, it certainly does not scream HOF to me:
Stabler
1975 16 TDs 24 INTs
1978 16 TDs 30 INTs
1980 13 TDs 28 INTs
1983 9 TDs 18 INTs
I think Anderson and Simms are both more deserving of the HOF than Stabler. Of the 3, Anderson is the only deserving guy IMO. >>
Well alot of QBs have bad looking seasons..Especially in that era...The rules didn't aid the QB or WR at ALL.
Bradshaw:
1970 6 TD 24 INT
1971 13 TD 22 INT
1973 10 TD 15 INT
1974 7 TD 8 INT
1976 10 TD 9 INT
1977 17 TD 19 INT
1979 26 TD 25 INT
1980 24 TD 22 INT
Both Stabler and Bradshaw played in a run the ball, stretch the field offense, and they both led their teams to multiple playoff seasons. The good and bad on Ken Anderson is that he was one of the first QBs to play in a West Coast Offense. He was one of the first to put up the high completion type stats, but if you check his avg. yds per attempt you'll see he's much lower than most if not all of his contemporaries. Then again, he has amazing stats for the era in which he played. People forget Anderson was the MVP of league at one time, and I too think he is equally deserving as Stabler, but Stabler performed consistenly well on the biggest stage, while Anderson was never known for being a great come from behind guy. Stabler became a legend, while Anderson was just a good QB. Take away a couple of players from the Steel Curtain defense and you might be talking about Stabler in the same breath as Bradshaw right now.
Simms, I've never been a huge fan. He's ok, always seemed to play well, but I never felt he was a key reason the Giants were winning. When the Giants had Hostetler in they didn't miss a beat. I wouldn't be totally against Simms making the HOF because he does have descent stats and a Super Bowl MVP, but definitely would think Stabler and Anderson would go before him. Both Stabler and Anderson have been in the final 15 multiple times, Simms has never even made the final 25, so I think the voters pretty much feel the same way.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I think it is a 6.5
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I have completed my research on some of the more modern rookies that we might be shopping for down the road for this as well as other HOF and Key Card sets.
I went through each player's rookie card history and took out any/all auto/jersey/game used and insert/parallel cards. I also limited the individually numbered cards to 999 or higher. It's possible PSA could go lower, but I would hope not.
Take a look at what I have and let me know if you see any errors (missing or included that shouldn't be). A few of these I haven't been able to actually lay eyes on yet to confirm that they qualify for our sets. Also, some players have multiple card options as they have cards of similar/equal value. This is from 2001 to 2004.
Steve Hutchinson----2001------Crown Royale#185
LaDanian Tomlinson-2001------Topps Chrome#221
Steve Smith-----------2001------Topps Chrome#223
Drew Brees-----------2001-------Topps Chrome#229
Reggie Wayne--------2001------Topps Chrome#250
Chad Johnson--------2001------Topps Chrome#259
Marcus Stroud--------2001------Topps Chrome#263
Richard Seymour-----2001------Topps Chrome#282
Todd Heap------------2001-------Topps Chrome#293
T.J. Houshmandzadeh--2001---Topps Chrome#298
Brian Westbrook-----2002------SP Authentic#157 OR SPX#133
Ed Reed---------------2002-------SPX#99 OR Topps Chrome#208
Dwight Freeney------2002------SPX#114 OR Topps Chrome#171
John Henderson-----2002------SPX#117 OR Topps Chrome#201
Clinton Portis---------2002------SPX#122 OR Topps Chrome#181
Julius Peppers--------2002------SPX#143 OR Topps Chrome#214
Jeremy Shockey------2002------Topps Chrome#172
Roy Williams----------2002------Topps Chrome#176
Alan Faneca-----------2002------Upper Deck XL#362
Lance Briggs----------2003------Bowman#120
Antonio Gates--------2003------Leaf R&S#132
Jason Witten---------2003------SP Authentic#199
Carson Palmer-------2003------Topps Chrome#166
Anquan Boldin--------2003------Topps Chrome#203
Kevin Williams--------2003------Topps Chrome#214
Willis McGahee-------2003------Topps Chrome#215
Larry Johnson--------2003------Topps Chrome#220
Andre Johnson-------2003------Topps Chrome#235
Troy Polamalu--------2003------SP Authentic#120 OR Topps Chrome#274 OR Leaf R&S#250
Willie Parker----------2004------Leaf R&S#181
Steven Jackson------2004------Playoff Prestige#169 OR Topps Chrome#180
Bob Sanders---------2004------SP Authentic#146 OR SPX#135
Ben Rothlisberger---2004------Topps Chrome#166
Larry Fitzgerald------2004------Topps Chrome#215
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
I would also take SP authentic over all the SPX..
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
I think the reason the SPX are up in value is that they are numbered to like 1150 or 1500 in that range. The 2002-2004 Topps Chrome are not numbered.
What would you guys think, as a rule of thumb, of giving specific brands priority over others if/when the value is very close or equal for qualifying cards?
2002, the order would be:
1- SP Authentic (although most from 2002 are auto or jersey or whatver, but some like the Westbrook are not)
2- Topps Chrome
3- SPX
4- Leaf R & S
2003:
1- SP Authentic
2- Topps Chrome
3- SPX
4- Leaf R&S
2004:
1-SP Authentic
2-Topps Chrome
3-SPX
4-Leaf R &S
I'm not sure about the 2004 Playoff Prestige Stephen Jackson. For whatever reason, that card has a higher value than his Topps Chrome and I haven't seen any evidence that tells me its an auto/jersey/or lower than 999 numbered card. Anyone ever seen this card?
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>2003:
1- SP Authentic
2- Topps Chrome
3- SPX
4- Leaf R&S >>
This looks right to me. Do you know if any of the players on your list only have one rookie card? That always makes things easy.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Yes, I am soooo kidding.
I would agree with that "weighting" system for cards from current players.
Jay
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Steve Hutchinson----2001------Crown Royale#185
LaDanian Tomlinson-2001------Topps Chrome#221
Steve Smith-----------2001------Topps Chrome#223
Drew Brees-----------2001-------Topps Chrome#229
Reggie Wayne--------2001------Topps Chrome#250
Chad Johnson--------2001------Topps Chrome#259
Marcus Stroud--------2001------Topps Chrome#263
Richard Seymour-----2001------Topps Chrome#282
Todd Heap------------2001-------Topps Chrome#293
T.J. Houshmandzadeh--2001---Topps Chrome#298
Brian Westbrook-----2002------SP Authentic#157
Ed Reed---------------2002-------Topps Chrome#208
Dwight Freeney------2002------Topps Chrome#171
John Henderson-----2002------Topps Chrome#201
Clinton Portis---------2002------Topps Chrome#181
Julius Peppers--------2002------Topps Chrome#214
Jeremy Shockey------2002------Topps Chrome#172
Roy Williams----------2002------Topps Chrome#176
Alan Faneca-----------2002------Upper Deck XL#362
Lance Briggs----------2003------Bowman#120
Antonio Gates--------2003------Leaf R&S#132
Jason Witten---------2003------SP Authentic#199
Carson Palmer-------2003------Topps Chrome#166
Anquan Boldin--------2003------Topps Chrome#203
Kevin Williams--------2003------Topps Chrome#214
Willis McGahee-------2003------Topps Chrome#215
Larry Johnson--------2003------Topps Chrome#220
Andre Johnson-------2003------Topps Chrome#235
Troy Polamalu--------2003------SP Authentic#120
Willie Parker----------2004------Leaf R&S#181
Steven Jackson------2004------Playoff Prestige#169 OR Topps Chrome#180 (still not sure on this one)
Bob Sanders---------2004------SP Authentic#146
Ben Rothlisberger---2004------Topps Chrome#166
Larry Fitzgerald------2004------Topps Chrome#215
I don't think all of these guys are future HOFers. Some are on this list because they may eventually make the All-Time RB or WR set...Or possibly the 2000 Team of the Decade set in a couple years.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Mark
<< <i>I have a question for you guys. I know his stats don't merit automatic inclusion into a HOF discussion, but how come Hines Ward never gets any love from you guys? From looking at the 'what does the guy mean to his team' perspective, he's got to be up there with most of the current receivers in the game, no?
Mark >>
Hines is a great player for the Steelers. Personally, never had reason to bring him up here. I don't think he will be a HOFer at this point in his career. He will retire with a lot of catches, probably 900+, but also will likely have under 10,000 yards. He's got 4 Pro Bowls and a Super Bowl MVP going for him, but for modern era WRs, you're going to have to have big stats, and or have been the dominant player on the field who was feared by opposing defenses. I don't think Hines falls into any of those categories. He's a SOLID possession WR, one of the best blocking WRs in the game and one of the leaders of the team. His rookie card is already part of the Super Bowl MVPs set if you're looking for which card would be his HOF RC.
I just don't think he is/was a HOF caliber player. If Art Monk and Andre Reed can't get in..Drew Pearson has never gotten in..Del Shofner never gets a mention..Hines doesn't have a prayer. I'd give him about a 10% chance of making the Pro Football HOF, and a 100% chance of making the Steelers HOF...He's just one of those guys who falls one notch below, definitely in the Hall of Very Good..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 have a question for you guys. I know his stats don't merit automatic inclusion into a HOF discussion, but how come Hines Ward never gets any love from you guys? From looking at the 'what does the guy mean to his team' perspective, he's got to be up there with most of the current receivers in the game, no?
Mark >>
Hines is a great player for the Steelers. Personally, never had reason to bring him up here. I don't think he will be a HOFer at this point in his career. He will retire with a lot of catches, probably 900+, but also will likely have under 10,000 yards. He's got 4 Pro Bowls and a Super Bowl MVP going for him, but for modern era WRs, you're going to have to have big stats, and or have been the dominant player on the field who was feared by opposing defenses. I don't think Hines falls into any of those categories. He's a SOLID possession WR, one of the best blocking WRs in the game and one of the leaders of the team. His rookie card is already part of the Super Bowl MVPs set if you're looking for which card would be his HOF RC.
I just don't think he is/was a HOF caliber player. If Art Monk and Andre Reed can't get in..Drew Pearson has never gotten in..Del Shofner never gets a mention..Hines doesn't have a prayer. I'd give him about a 10% chance of making the Pro Football HOF, and a 100% chance of making the Steelers HOF...He's just one of those guys who falls one notch below, definitely in the Hall of Very Good..lol
Jason >>
I hear you, Jason. It's just a shame to me that guys like Chad Johnson, Houshmandzadeh, etc. that really don't have a respect for the game and how it should be played are getting more recognition than Hines Ward, a truly good guy by all accounts...
<< <i>
I hear you, Jason. It's just a shame to me that guys like Chad Johnson, Houshmandzadeh, etc. that really don't have a respect for the game and how it should be played are getting more recognition than Hines Ward, a truly good guy by all accounts... >>
When and who did ANYONE ever say Houshmandzadeh has been better the last few years than Hines Ward...If they did, they need a labotomy...lol..He was better THIS SEASON, but that's about it...
Chad Johnson o nthe other hand has GREAT stats. Really, you can only measure what they do on the field, in the game. All the dancing and whatever, I don't pay attention to that. Johnson is FEARED by opposing defenses. Even with T.J. across from him, he regularly pulls the others teams #1 DB and garners a lot of double coverage. Not only that, but he's averaging 80 catches and 1195 yards per season over his first 7 season. That's a HOF type numbers pace. He's also got the same number of Pro Bowls as Hines in 3 fewer seasons already. Look at All-Pro voting from 2000-2007..Johnson has 45 votes, Hines has 13.
Now I like Hines, don't get me wrong..But I don't know that i would categorize him as a "great respect for the game guy". He may not dance, but he runs A WHOLLLLEEE LOTTAAAA SMAKCK during the game. I've watched a lot of Steelers the last 10 years, and he does more smack talk than Chad Johnson or T.J. He also cries to the officials quite a bit, he's no angel...lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I know the HOF is more of a numbers game, especially with WRs, but, at the end of the day, I'd rather have Ward on my team than Johnson. There's a reason the Bengals have greatly underachived the last few years and you totally can't discount Johnson's contribution to this. Between his antics on and off the field and his constant undermining of the coaching staff, I feel he does have a negative impact on his team. I just read a stat depicting Carson Palmer's 2007 season and they attributed about 70-80% of his interceptions on routes that were run incorrectly by his WRs. I just know that whenever the Bengals are involved in a big game (doesn't happen too often), Johnson disappears for good portions of the game.
Mark
It wasn't a slight to him or Moss or T.O. or Harrison or any of the HOF type WRs..We just already know THE rookie card for anything 2000 and before...
I think Johnson is going to be traded, and if he is we will get a chance to see how he performs in a different system. Personally I think he will do well. If Johnson's antics were the reason the Bengals had a bad season, then they should fire the entire coaching staff for allowing it. From what i watched, they were terrible because of their defense. Rudi was injured, and they were playing from behind quite often so opposing defenses were playing nickel and dime on them. Chad tends to disappear because he's being double covered and palmer doesn;t like to force throws..He's a "safe throw" guy..If Rothlisberger was johnson's QB, he wouldn't have been taken out of the game. Big Ben with stand and gunsling with the best of them, double covered or not, he's not afraid to go fo the tight throws...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I'm sorry. I thought that was a list of all actives, not just 2001 and later. My bad.
Question for the board. What percentage that Bettis gets in on his first try, with all of the compeition he will face?
Mark